Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 Next
Comments 65151 to 65200:
-
Tristan at 23:24 PM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Of course, when HadCRUT4 is released the conspiracati will say: 'They weren't seeing warming so they kept picking which stations they used till the warming appeared, they're hiding the decline!' It'll be further evidence of 'warmist' deception. You know, precisely how they reacted to the ARGO edits. Unfortunately there is zero way to avoid this reaction. Most of the big names will carry their opinions with them to their graves. -
Peter Roberts at 22:33 PM on 30 January 2012New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
Thanks Micheal. I assumed that with 334 kJ being absorbed by the melting of each kg of ice that will never refreeze and then the reduced albedo of open water, there would be a significant increase in energy available to be absorbed by the Arctic Ocean and permafrost in the ESAS and the adjoining land. Clearly it isn't as important as I thought! -
Rob Painting at 20:58 PM on 30 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
apeescape - yup, will be up within the next week or so. We keep pointing out the ocean is still warming and that over 90% of global warming actually goes into the ocean. So we're not remiss in that regard. -
john byatt at 20:04 PM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
re the daily mail lies, met office news is worth getting email updates from http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/ -
apeescape at 19:50 PM on 30 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Will you guys be covering the Loeb et al. (2012) paper? There's still too much observation error to really tell if there is a discrepancy between radiation flux and ocean heat content. It'll probably require at least 5 more years of data to see if they both match. I didn't like the original Trenberth graph because it smoothed over uncertainties so much. Both ocean heat and radiation imbalance are powerful ways to show that the Earth is warming. I think it's possibly a more effective way to point out the statistical insignificance of atmospheric non-warming over a short period of time. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:17 PM on 30 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
@chriskoz wrote "I simply don't understand how certain denominations can develop such incoherent logic." Human nature, as a species it is something at which we excell. Einstein wrote "There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity (although I'm not sure about the universe)" [or words to that effect] ;o) -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:13 PM on 30 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
"The lack of warming for more than a decade" is rather an embarassing statement for the "cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting" to have endorsed, given that 10 years of data is not nearly enough for one to be able to reliably detect a warming trend in the data when it is actually there. Any decent forecaster would have looked at the power of the test and would have known that there is nothing that surprising about a lack of warming for a decade (or two). -
owl905 at 18:24 PM on 30 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
The Wall Street Journal acquired anti-science syndrome years ago. The article is nothing new, and the rogue's gallery is nothing new. The 2200 comments don't even look new. But all the article has to do is drag the same bottom-feeding message over and over again. That's how anchors really work. The interesting side-note was the discovery of a new article - the Garden of CO2 has a hot snake in it: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21399-wheat-will-age-prematurely-in-a-warmer-world.html Wheat yields in northern India are declining - heat-driven premature aging. The guys at the WSJ should debunk that one. -
owl905 at 17:44 PM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Actually, they're identical with a 2-point difference favouring the northern hemisphere lead influence. And the NOAA graph isn't the real global - it's the background level measured from the network's marine sites (sea level). Mauna Loa works for me. -
chriskoz at 17:39 PM on 30 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
Tristan @8, Your well know evangelists who claim that: "Wealth is by definition, sanctioned by The Lord" simply contradict themselves. Their dogma does not make sense, because the bible teaches to the contrary, i.e.: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" repeated at least in 3 gospels: http://bible.cc/matthew/19-24.htm http://bible.cc/mark/10-25.htm http://bible.cc/luke/18-25.htm I'm with william @6 on that subject: I simply don't understand how certain denominations can develop such incoherent logic. -
Doug Hutcheson at 17:13 PM on 30 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
This would be the same propaganda covered in the video linked by J. Bob here, I think. As I commented at the time, it is hilarious. The interviewer seems deeply interested in getting to the truth. Not. -
Chris G at 16:28 PM on 30 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Pirate, As a science teacher, you are obligated to teach your students the predominant understanding of today. You are doing them a disservice otherwise. Climate changes in the past are associated with mass extinctions; getting too hung up on the wording used at one source, and the particulars about what it means, is not really helping your students. Personally, I think the rate of recent extinctions, overall has more to do with the explosive growth of the homo sapiens species. I don't know how 7 billion people can exist on the planet and not push some other species out of the resources they need. Some extinctions are undoubtedly a result of changing environmental conditions, but climate change is only getting warmed up. On the school board and science standards, I was disheartened and infuriated when the school board here in Kansas was taken over by a bunch of right-wingers who mandated teaching of intelligent design. However, as it played out, the following year there was a turnover of the board, and that decision was reversed before it could be implemented. Here's hoping sanity triumphs elsewhere. -
owl905 at 15:20 PM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
It's fairly easy to shoot at the barrel-fish in Archibald's paper, but SKS missed the magic-moment Joke-of-the-year: his prediction about global CO2 levels: (from page 8): 7. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level: Relatively flat 2010 - 2030 "He very funny man." http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/Response:[DB] Actually, that was Mauna Loa. Global is here (December not yet finalized): http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global
-
owl905 at 15:02 PM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
This site gets my daily visits; has for years. It ain't too shabby at all (as opposed to Archibald's work): http://www.solarham.com/ -
barry at 14:45 PM on 30 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
I read a great little book on propagandistic phraseology called Unspeak, by Stephen Poole. He had this story to tell:"The U.S., Saudi Arabia, and other oil-producing countries lobbied the U.N. in the late 1980s to change the language of early resolutions from 'global warming' to 'climate change' because the latter is vaguer and less frightening, and also because it doesn’t point the finger so directly at the burning of fossil fuels as the cause. While 'climate change' is scientifically correct (because a local climate might get colder rather than hotter), it obscures the fact that such changes will be a result of the rising mean temperature of the planet — i.e., of global warming."
-
DrTsk at 14:29 PM on 30 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
I do not see algae meeting those criteria... Nor plant based biodiesel.. Too much N,O,S, metals In favor of methanol, can make from a variety of sources.. -
actually thoughtful at 14:09 PM on 30 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
DrTsk - anything worth doing has to resolve the issues of scalability and cost. Not sure what your point is. At this point, we have pretty good solutions for heat, cool and electric. Liquid (or other high density) fuels for travel that are sustainable ARE the big nut to crack. I am very happy to see some serious work in that regard. -
bibasir at 13:48 PM on 30 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
l'm with Joe. At least it might take the wind out of 'warming stopped in 1998. -
DrTsk at 12:50 PM on 30 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
The largest barriers are productivity, scaleability, cost... -
Tom Curtis at 12:50 PM on 30 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
bibasir @26, exactly correct. Of course, over the period of interest, emissions were less than Scenario C. That explains exactly why Michaels only reported Scenario A. -
Tom Curtis at 12:48 PM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
ferox @22, the Daily Mail was referring to this press release, showing HadCRUT temperature data for 2011. As it happens, it shows 1997 and 2011 as having the same temperature. The linear trend of the HadCRUT3v global data (which differs slightly from that in the press release, as does the HadCRUT3 data) shows the linear trend over the period 1997 to 2011 to be effectively zero (0.01 degrees C per decade). The first thing to notice about this is the obvious cherry picking. The press release also shows the NOAA NCDC figures, the NASA GISS figures, and the WMO figures, all of which show significant positive trends. So, the Met Office did not release figures showing no increase in temperature. On the contrary, they released a set of figures which together show an increase in temperature, although one particular index did not. Of greater interest is the fact that version 4 of the Hadley CRU temperature series is about to be released. The significant difference between version 3 and verion 4, from our perspective, is that version 4 has more Russian, and more Arctic stations, thus filling in some of the gaps in coverage of HadCRUT3. The effect of filling in those gaps over recent years is shown below:
As can be seen, HadCRUT4 (red line) is significantly warmer than HadCRUT3 (blue line) after about 2003, resulting in 2005 and 2010 both being warmer than 1998, and a net positive trend. GISSTEMP (NASA) and the GHCN (NOAA) already use mathematical techniques to avoid the lack of coverage that plagues HadCRUT3, so unsurprisingly, increasing the overage of HadCRUT brings it closer into line with the other two indices. This clearly demonstrates that the lack of warming in HadCRUT3 is an artifact of gaps in coverage of that index. Preferring it to either GISTEMP or GHCN is to prefer an index which is known to be less accurate just because it suites your prejudices.
The third point is, as I believe you have alluded to, is that this is just another example of deniers trying to go down the up elevator.
Finally, I have located and read the Mail article to which you refer, and the press release regarding solar activity which they focus on. As is typical of press releases from many research institutions, they report the research, but do not cite the paper. (IMO, that shows such a fundamental lack of awareness of the nature of science as to render the composer of the press release unfit for their duties.) Consequently I am guessing as to which paper the press release refers to. The two best candidates are this on a future grand solar minimum, this on climate impacts of solar minimums, or this (which is behind a paywall, so I cannot give you a summary). I notice the Mail continues the standard practice of "balance" in main stream media. That is, if you report on the consensus of climate science, two thirds of the article must be given over to the opinions of (largely) unqualified deniers for balance; but when you report on the opinions of climate change deniers, no opinions of climate scientists need be reported for balance.
The article is, in other words, not journalism but propaganda!
-
bibasir at 12:33 PM on 30 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
I think the best way to look at Hansen 1988 is if emission a are A, then the result is A' If the emissions are B then ----- etc. -
Rob Painting at 12:30 PM on 30 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
There you took a statement from Sphaerica (that he falsified from me) and made a response that shows your insistence on focusing on the buzzwords like "climate change" or "global warming" that you see in articles or published papers. If you really read the paper, you would realize it does little, or nothing, to support your premise. Words like 'global warming' and 'climate change' are anathema to a fake-skeptic, but really so what? Your conduct here is exceedingly obvious - you wish to downplay the significance of global warming-related extinction, but the scientific literature does not support you. If you think amphibian populations can be sustained with such a phenomenal rate of extinction you are simply deluding yourself. Other people do not possess this cognitive ability to ignore reality - least of all those studying the natural world. The fact that you have "...researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years." shows. I get this a lot with fake-skeptics, when their argument has been thoroughly refuted, but my response is always the same - an appeal to authority is worthless if you have none. Being a school teacher means what exactly in terms of expertise? In fact the enormous number of wrong-headed posts you have made here really destroys such a notion. I don't claim to be an expert - that would be foolish. I just happen to be right about the topics I have thoroughly researched. And if I have an issue or question I bother to contact the scientist whose papers I'm writing about. Some are extraordinarily helpful in fact. That's why fake-skeptics have to resort to concern trolling, talking around in circles, saying their not clear on something, and those kinds of rhetorical devices. SkS blog posts are robust because they are so staunchly supported by the scientific literature upon which they are based. Don't think we haven't noticed. No, real experts are those that publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and whose work stands up to scrutiny by other experts. Those are the people whose work we research and understand. That is the foundation of all posts here. That's why SkS posts stand up to scrutiny. Fake-skeptics objections flounder because they are essentially arguing with the experts and the overwhelming evidence. Sorry, but that's just the way we roll. "........you managed to make more direct in #50." Here's what I wrote at @ 50. " Sphaerica- "and even if it is it won't be bad" Well, the birds, butterflies, lizards and amphibians that have already become extinct from global warming paint a rather different picture. As far as amphibians are concerned, it's hard to see much of a future for many of them. Their current rate of extinction may be 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. And that is not a typo." All factually-based. All supported by the scientific literature. Do you really think that that won't be bad? Amphibians already appear well on their way to oblivion. "As I teach my students, when investigating environmental issues all factors must be considered and accepted or discarded as warranted.' Hopefully your students are taught not to just take your word, and to actually research the scientific literature, all of it, to glean a thorough understanding of why scientists studying the natural world are so concerned about global warming. I'm sure it would be a real eye-opener for them. "I am very interested in the postings on global warming and extinctions you plan to publish in the future" I'm sure some will be surprised the by the gravity of the situation. It's beyond trivializing. And it won't be just me writing about them. I think it's important to deflate the skeptic myth "It won't be bad" once and for all. But it's going to be a biggie of a collection. -
mouchmouch at 11:46 AM on 30 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
Apologies. Didn't link it right. the algae experiment -
mouchmouch at 11:44 AM on 30 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
Great speech, this kind of tech is really up and coming. An architecture student is doing some good work on making a closed loop photo-bioreactor. It's called the algae experiment. You can read more here on http://thealgaeexperiment.tumblr.com -
Models are unreliable
Climate-Change-Theory/Doug Cotton - Let's be clear here. Your arguments violate observations and physical laws, and go against even freshman physics. It's just not a viable objection. Please - go read a book or two... such objections are why many 'skeptics' are not taken seriously. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:03 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
J Bob @ 8 Hilarious video - thanks for the link. "We should do nothing about CO2 for at least several decades, until we can see where it is going." Good ol' Wall Street Journal - always on top of the big issues. Not. -
scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 30 January 2012Models are unreliable
Consider for a moment how backradiation is measured (a Pyrgeometer). The thermopile has to be heated by the incoming radiation to generate a voltage at all. According the imaginary 2nd Law postulated by Doug and others, this couldn't happen. And yet a pyrgeometer makes measurements that are completely consistent with what boring textbook versions of thermodynamics postulate. If backradiation cannot warm the surface, then what physics accounts for what a pyrgeometer measures? -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:39 AM on 30 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
Tristan@8 Yes, the Radical Right conveniently forget the admonition that "The love of money is the root of all evil" and that money = power in our greed-centric view of civilisation. Dr Katharine Hayhoe has a good deal of right on her side, but is fighting a powerful evil that is expert at distorting truth. Still, you can only save the world one person at a time. More power to her. Christians who cherry-pick from the bible are not listening to the message, IMHO. If the book of Revelation is taken into account, the Four Horsemen must be in the stables already, saddling up and getting ready for the Apocalypse. I take a different view: my Four Horsemen are GFC2, Global Warming, Peak Oil and Overpopulation. One of the alleged Chinese Curses is "May you live in interesting times". I think we are doing that. -
ferox at 10:33 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
I saw the article in the Daily Mail today (it was on the bus; I don't buy such rubbish :P) - what caught my interest was the statement "Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years". The 'article' also then goes on to refer to a paper released last week by the Met office. It would be helpful if they at least gave some indication of which paper they are referring to aka a reference? Does anyone know what its on about? Regarding the '15 years of no warming' is it just a rehash of number 9 on the left hand side panel of this page? -
John Hartz at 10:27 AM on 30 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
Suggested reading: “Cutting Climate Change is Simple: Just Stop Subsidising Fossil Fuels” by Tim Worstall, Forbes, Jan 29, 2012 To access this brief op-ed, click here. -
dhogaza at 10:23 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
" The Daily Mail is about a step above The National Enquirer." - that's a bit unfair to the Enquirer, which has been known to be right from time to time ... :) -
Rob Painting at 08:51 AM on 30 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Pirate - as stated earlier in this thread there is a vast amount of literature of global warming -driven extinction. I'll get around to writing about it, but I'm busy on other topics. Glad I've actually prompted you to do some research, but all you've done is search for material that confirms your preconceived notions, and ignored the rest. "If so, it doesn't appear that you read past the abstract that you linked to back at #50" Iv'e read the paper, but you don't appear to have taken on board what this means. Rather than being all hunky-dory as you try to assert - amphibians are in deep deep trouble. 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians!? It puts things into perspective does it not? Having a laser-like focus on just one cause is dangerous and not proper science This is just a strawman argument. I made clear in comment @10 the reality of the situation. "The trouble is humans extinguish plants and animals in so many different ways, not only by making it too warm." One doesn't have to be that well read to realize that human disruption of natural environments extends well beyond global warming itself. This is a climate-oriented blog, so aside from mentioning these other factors, we don't into those other details. Most readers would understand this. -
Stu at 08:34 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Muoncounter, it's solar cycle 24 that will peak in 2013/14, so SC25's peak can be expected in the 2020s, though 2022 seems a bit early. That's not to say the Mail isn't full of tripe - it is. -
funglestrumpet at 08:07 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Is there any way that this Mr Archibald could be described as having made a genuine mistake? It looks like a cynical attempt to sway public opinion away from taking the action the real science is screaming for. If so, I just hope that he is called to answer for his actions when the public wake up to reality. -
littlerobbergirl at 08:00 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
oh gloom, gloom. the sun is not going to save us. thanks for the 'jones et al' link, it's nice to see the folk at the met. publishing again, they've been very quiet last few years - and may be again if the tory cuts take hold. tomcj - i wish i didnt know how its done - just give me moneythat's what i want .. CTG - " They are only meant to influence politicians, though, which is why they don't need to be realistic" oh, i so wish that was an exaggeration! so much for 'reality based decision making". dana - go geezer! getting better with each post! -
dana1981 at 07:42 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
If you read something about climate science in The Daily Mail, especially if written by David Rose, you can be 99% sure it's complete and utter garbage. The Daily Mail is about a step above The National Enquirer. It's basically a tabloid. -
Riccardo at 07:28 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
In his paper Archibald says: "Here, Figure 5 shows another similar correlation for the Central England Temperature record, this time of 0.6° C cooling per year of extra cycle length." Eyeballing the figure is looks unlikely but nevertheless I digitized the data. I found that the slope of his best fit line is not -0.6 °C/yr but -0.2 °C/yr. It's not even the true best fit line to the data shown in the figure, which has a slope of -0.1 °C/yr. Six times lower than what he claims.
-
muoncounter at 07:22 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
tomcj, You're referring to David Rose's junk science in the 29 January Daily Mail Online. How's this for an opening inaccuracy: Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still. --emphasis added A quick look up at the figure in this post shows cycle 25 will peak in 2013-14. Oops. I'll bet this Peter Stott quote doesn't get a mention in fake-sceptic land: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’ The SSN graph (labeled as 'Solar cycle amplitude') shown in Rose's post is already incorrect. Another oops. This is junk. -
jimb at 07:17 AM on 30 January 2012New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
You don't have to go so far north- here in Edmonton AB Canada, the 'normal' high for today is -7C, forecast high today is +6C, with forecast for the rest of the week all above 0C, between +1 and +6 C. We have only had 10 days of cold weather so far this year, the rest being above normal. Very low snow pack for this time of year as well. -
CTG at 06:11 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
@John Brookes: the point of all these predictions of global cooling is delay. The fake sceptics are trying to create the impression that there are serious scientific predictions of cooling in order to influence political decisions. They are only meant to influence politicians, though, which is why they don't need to be realistic in any way - simply convincing enough to a politician. If the politicians believe that there is serious debate about whether it is going to warm or cool, then the only rational (to a politician) solution is to wait another, oh 10 or 20 years before doing anything radical like reducing emissions. The fake sceptics know perfectly well that it is not going to cool, but their only goal is to prevent action for a few more years until it is obvious to absolutely everyone that it is going to keep warming. A cynical, and IMHO utterly evil, ploy. -
tomcj at 05:50 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
I am a civilian, who is amazed at the power of the so-called skeptics. This Sunday, January 29, 2012, the denier echo machine is all over Memeorandum siting a "NASA" prediction/or study that shows that we will have a new ice age. The media for denying global warming is very powerful, and I don't know how it is done, but http://www.skepticalscience.com needs to be referenced more so people without science backgrounds will know that scientists are NOT deeply divided over the facts and predictions. Thank you for fighting the good and great fight. -
Alexandre at 04:54 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
The broader public should know what kind of "peer review" is done at Energy&Environment. I wish it became clear for the public, or at least the mainstream media, what kind of "alternative view" E&E provides. Or Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and their fellows, for that matter. -
SeaHuck5891 at 04:02 AM on 30 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #3
I am new to the site and this is my first post. My question is this: Is it possible to include a feature that allows me to see when new comments have been added to each post since I last viewed it? For example, it could read "55 comments, 4 new." I like to read all the comments, and it is difficult to know when new comments have been added since I last viewed the post. Just wondering if this is an option. Thanks for the consideration and for making this site what it is.Moderator Response: Part of what you're asking for is accessible by clicking the Comments link in the blue horizontal bar at the top of the page. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:56 AM on 30 January 2012It's cooling
Climate-Change-Theory @ 178... What your chart tells us is that, except for one very brief period, the trend has been positive, and often strongly positive. And the trend is still at the high end. Looking at the trend of the trend tells you what? Zero, as far as I can tell. -
dana1981 at 03:30 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Apologies, I also have a John McLean cooling prediction post in the works, and had intended to publish it first (in which case the McLean link in the post would have worked), but this post became more time-sensitive and thus was published first. When the McLean post is published this week, the link will then work. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:30 AM on 30 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Rob Painting at 85 Are you stating that Malcolm L. McCallum's 2007 paper about "Amphibian Decline or Extinction?..." (found here) confirms global warming driven extinction? If so, it doesn't appear that you read past the abstract that you linked to back at #50. If you had you would have noticed that climate change was mentioned exactly once in the entire paper, and that was part of a list of potential causes which I paraphrase below. (For the complete text see the above link.) "The potential causes are numerous and include habitat degradation and loss, introduced species, pollution, contaminants, pathogens, climate change, or interactions among several factors Many of these implicated stressors trace directly or indirectly back to humans." There are numerous reasons for the increased extinction rate and of those climate change may be one and may also work synergistically with others. All of those potential reasons and their interactions need to be studied and acted on as necessary. Having a laser-like focus on just one cause is dangerous and not proper science. For instance, Mendelson and the IUCN are referenced in the paper for the following information. Since 1500 35 amphibian species have gone extinct, and 9 of those have occurred since 1980. Those numbers could be as high as 130 extinctions with 122 since 1980. Mendelson points to the chytrid fungus as the cause of the acceleration. That is not saying that climate change is not an issue, but it is saying that learning ways to combat chytrid is of greater importance. One promising treatment is using bacteria which lessens the mortality rate. It could be applied to large areas of soil and water. -
les at 02:35 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
8 - This Willam Happer? -
muoncounter at 02:34 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
JBob, A video from the Marshall Institute is not interesting in any way. And it is also off-topic. Further off-topic references will be deleted. -
J. Bob at 01:55 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Interesting video, with Dr. William Happer, Princeton physics professor, on his view of global warming. http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-global-warming-hoax/B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419.html?mod=opinion_video_newsreel
Prev 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 Next
