Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 Next
Comments 65201 to 65250:
-
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 -
wingding at 01:21 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
I don't see any mention of the failure of David Archibald's last ridiculous global cooling prediction: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=197 -
ClimateWatcher at 01:15 AM on 30 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Those cooling prediction numbers do sound extreme. The interesting thing about solar influence is that we may be in the process of the experiment, if in fact cycle 25 represents a quiescent period. -
muoncounter at 01:07 AM on 30 January 2012It's cooling
Tom C, Your analysis of Cotton's copious mistakes is spot on. However, tamino may have come up with many great things, but that particular term originated with economists. This definition predates tamino's 2011 usage by some 5 years. Note these attributes of those who indulge: ...a combination of intellectual laziness and mistaken arrogance ... 'Nuff said. -
John Brookes at 23:07 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
I remember McLean's predictions, and at the time thinking, "why did he bother to make such a way out prediction?" The same question occurs to me now. Why would you make such a prediction? From elsewhere: 'That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he’s wrong. As David says ” The center of the Corn Belt, now in Iowa, will move south to Kansas.”' 4.9 C over the next 20 years! What is he smoking? -
Paul D at 22:30 PM on 29 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
I think the use of the word 'carbon' isn't in order to make a bigger impact to the public, which is what the engineer seemed to think. It is used as a convenience word when having to deal with the complexity of the issues. But also carbon is the basis of producing CO2 and hence how we exploit it, is important and has consequences. -
les at 22:17 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
skywatcher... the Hermeneutics of Doug's "cut-off frequency being determined by Wien's Displacement theory" is clear. Claes Johnson looked at Wien's displacement law saw the Peak wavelength / frequency described as maximum and interpreted this as a cut-off - although hedged with "heavily attenuated" if you look at his writing. 1/ I can understand how a Swedish native speaker could confuse Maximum in the sense of Peak and in the sense of "the highest value possible". To a mathematical - rather than a physics - the error would be opaque. 2/ the "heavily attenuated" hedge is a bit odd as, as we all know, the distribution of BB radiation falls both above and below the maximum... 3/ none of this actually follows form Prof. Johnsonns conscious-quanta ... which stands alone in it's bizarrness. 4/ Doug does not have the where-withall to either read Prof. Johnsonns material in enough detail to see this nor to understand empirical physics which demonstrate it one way or the other. -
Tristan at 21:57 PM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
This is somewhat off-topic and could conceivably be considered advertising, but have any of the staff at this site considered promoting and/or reviewing the following game? I ask here because I'd be interested to hear pirate's view wrt incorporating such software into the education sphere in the US. It seems to be a powerful way of engaging young minds, it's thought provoking and built on the foundations of climate science and economics. -
Tristan at 21:45 PM on 29 January 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
To answer William's comment, here's a quote from one well-known televangelist that seems to characterise the situation: "There’s no need for us to apologize for being blessed." When people start considering wealth as a "blessing from God", problems abound. ie. Anything that generates wealth is by definition, sanctioned by The Lord. -
skywatcher at 21:17 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Cotton seems to think objects would be aware, when receiving radiation, the circumstances under which that radiation was emitted, whether blackbody or not. This is desperate, handwaving nonsense to defend a theory which, as Tom says, is not experimentally verified. -
Tom Curtis at 20:49 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Doug Cotton @483, scientists are interested in theories which are wrong in interesting ways, ie, wrong in such a way that you learn something new in trying to refute it. Claes Johnson is wrong in that boring old way of just being absurd. He purports to derive a new theory of black body radiation which differs significantly from Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, both of which are fundamental to the theory of radiation and have been multiply confirmed by observation. In place of these he offers a theory with no experimental confirmation, which we no will be disconfirmed experimentally because its predictions differ from those of a theory which is well confirmed experimentally; and whose only intellectual virtue is that it would refute a common misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect. That is not an interesting theory. Of course nobody has tried to disprove it, anymore than actual geologists don't waste their time trying to disprove hollow earth theories. I ask you again to link to papers showing experimental confirmation of the theory. Your failure to either do so, or to reject the theory as unempirical nonsense would show you once again to be trolling, and I would ask the moderators to enforce against you the ban for repeating, unmitigated trolling that has led to your prior banning which you are currently violating. -
Tom Curtis at 20:29 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Doug Cotton, if you want measure trends in temperature there is no reason to weight land temperatures differently from sea surface temperatures. Consequently there was no reason for you to exclude a third of the Earth's surface from your supposedly "logical and mathematical approach". Nor was there any reason to exclude 21% of the data in time. HadISST1 commences in 1871, not 1900. Including the data from 1871 to 1899 shows the pattern you claim to have detected in a single cycle does not hold outside the period you show:
Indeed, there was no reason to not show the Hadley Marine Air Temperature data (HadMAT) which extends back to 1856:
Doing so shows sixty years of declining sea temperatures terminating at the start of your "logical and mathematical approach". As sixty years is the duration of one cycle that you have purportedly detected, a sixty year period of declining sea temperatures resoundingly falsifies your model as a predictor of past, and hence presumably future sea surface temperatures.
Perhaps it is time you stopped plagiarizing Bob Tisdale by giving him blame for this analysis (there is no credit about it), and started relying on analysts who do not cherry pick their data.
Tamino came up for a name for this sort of statistical analysis that ignores data and ignores physics - mathturbation. I do not particularly like the term, but in this case it definitely applies.
(Source for HadISST and HadMAT graphs: Rayner et al, 2003)
-
Sapient Fridge at 20:09 PM on 29 January 2012David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change
Predictions of cooling have been made for years e.g. this article by Phil Chapman in "The Australian" predicting an ice age starting from 2008 which quite clearly has not come true as temperatures have continued to rise, not fall, since then. It's a shame there isn't a way of forcing newspapers to print a retraction, or at least an update, when observations don't match their predictions. BTW: The link to "John McLean's failed temperature prediction" doesn't work. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 20:01 PM on 29 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tom Curtis & Skywatcher @481 & 482 Regarding gases absorbing, see second paragraph here Regarding frost not melting, anecdotal only here For mathematical proof (which I have studied and agree with and which is not disproved) read Computational Blackbody Radiation. I am only interested in seeing any experiment (eg metal plates receiving backradiation at night) which demonstrates warming. Two identical radiators in open air warming up together will not help each other to warm faster because neither is hotter than the other. If they did you'd have energy creation. When the Earth surface and the first 1mm of the atmosphere are very close in temperature S-B law says there would be very little radiation. Microwaves (and lasers) are red herrings - they are not emitting spontaneous blackbody radiation - which is the subject above. Microwaves are a very special form of waves anyway which mostly only warm things like fat and water molecules up to boiling point only. They are irrelevant regarding backradiation. -
Rob Painting at 19:42 PM on 29 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Old Mole - "That's why I am flummoxed when hearing, from muon no less..." No need to be flummoxed there are a vast number of peer-reviewed scientific papers dealing with extinctions relating to global warming. You are grossly misrepresenting the situation, if you believe there is only one paper. Frogs, lizards, birds, butterflies have all gone extinct from global warming, and many, many thousands are poised at the precipice right now. Did you miss the current rate of amphibian extinction is 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians? We'll be covering a number of these global warming-driven extinctions in the future. -
Climate-Change-Theory at 19:06 PM on 29 January 2012It's cooling
Tom: I suggest that weighting of land v. ocean should be in proportion to thermal energy content - ie roughly 1:15 so if you wish to throw in 1/15th weighting of land temperatures on top of sea surface I'm happy with that, but it can't make much difference. I am not proposing a theory when I am merely using a logical statistical and mathematical approach to analysing all sea surface data since 1900 and saying there is no evidence of any increase in the rate of increase about 100 years ago compared with current rates. Whichever way you look at the data, there is only a rise of the order of 0.05 to 0.06 deg.C per decade on average since 1900. Nothing suggests that an extrapolation to 2100 should exhibit a faster rate of increase in the underlying trend. If you produce any other analysis of that sea surface data since 1900 which shows a sound reason for a rise of significantly more than, say, 0.6 deg.C over the next 88 or 89 years until the year 2100 I will take my hat off to you if I can't fault your logic. Go for it! Here is the source of the original plot.
Prev 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 Next
