Recent Comments

Prev  1327  1328  1329  1330  1331  1332  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  Next

Comments 66701 to 66750:

66701. dana1981 at 09:44 AM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       Glenn - re your 1st point, the lack of natural warming (due to flat solar and volcanic forcings since mid-century) also contributes to the increasing anthropogenic component. re your 2nd point, LR08 do include anthropogenic aerosols (see the inset in Figure 2d). The fact that their individual contributions sum to more than 100% is probably mostly due to the model not quite fitting the data over that timeframe.
66702. Glenn Tamblyn at 09:27 AM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       A couple of interesting observations. 1st, as the period becomes shorter and closer to the present the Anthro' contribution is getting larger, suggesting not just the dominance of the Anthro' part but its increase over time, just as you would expect as CO2 levels and emission rates rise. 2nd, for the last two shorter and more recent periods the sum of all 4 components is around 120%. Implying that there is another factor(s) that contributes some cooling. Yet this isn't there when the data covers a longer period. This means this other factor must have changed more recently. The key independent variable that L&R haven't analysed for (because they can't, we don't have adequate data on it) is non-Volcanic Aerosols. So what changed in the more recent period to change this? Us. Human air pollution from all sorts of sources. This might even be reflected in the values for those last 2 numbers in Table 2 1955-2005 is 120.4% total while 1979-2005 has dropped to 115.7% Does this reflect the fact that 1955-2005 includes the 50's, 60's and earlier 70's before the worlds various Clean Air Acts improved air pollution while the later period from 1979 was a world with somewhat cleaner air. That simple bar graph pretty clearly show the dominance of the Anthro' component, its increasing influence over time and Non-Volcanic aerosols look like strong candidates for a moderating effect, much as expected. It's always nice when new data and analyses show repeated confirmation of previous results. 'Settled Science'? Well just how settled does it need to be?
66703. scaddenp at 09:19 AM on 11 January 2012
       2011 Year in Review (part 2)
       Willian Haas - I suspect you are wasting time on misinformation sites. The actual science backs theory with data so the "religion" bit is pure rhetoric. This is great site to learn though. Pick a skeptic argument from the arguments list that you think is convincing and proceed from there. It sounds like you should start with Water is the most powerful GHG.
66704. Killian at 08:58 AM on 11 January 2012
       2011 Year in Review (part 2)
       "Fortunately, the latest work, which I covered in the post, suggests that it'll mean more global warming which will probably be disastrous, but not necessarily the collapse-of-human-civilisation level disaster we'd get with the full blown methane release hypothesised by some." The mistake here in logic, the fallacy, is only under a "clathrate gun" scenario can society collapse. News flash: with or without a clathrate gun, we're headed for collapse. Complex systems don't need many things to fail to break apart, just one key one. We have many failing all at the same time. The issues is not whether methane will cause collapse, it is how do we prevent the collapse underway, and does the methane make it a moot point? "Alarmist" is insulting. Please stop using it. The "alarmists" have been right so far, or are the indicators not well to the edges of the error bars thus far? Have some respect for the insight of those who have called the game thus far.
66705. Rob Painting at 06:24 AM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       tmac57 - Yes, Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future. The Andreae 2005 paper is well worth a read.
66706. scaddenp at 06:14 AM on 11 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       James, what you are asserting is flat out wrong and repeating the claim does not make it correct. Better would be link to where you got that understanding. (eg that old IPCC paper where you thought sulphate was a positive forcing can be then seen as a misreading by you which you could verify by going to the 1995 report). So... "GHG ratings are calculated by the IPCC based on the IR frequencies that a molecule absorbs." No. Repeating this without attribution yet again. Look up GWP (Global Warming Potential) to find out actually done. "Does anyone have a link to actual experiments that show what rate Sulfates reflect light and what matter states they do so?" Look at the references in Penner as pointed out to you. You might also follow the IPCC references on how i See IPCC AR4 WG1 for detailed discussion of aerosols - it answers your point. As to direct methods, try here and follow cites. You "CFCs where listed as a cooling agent in 2007. So when I said that was junk in 2008 I was right. Interestingly it now appears that the IPCC is using Sulfates as a replacement for CFCs as a cooling agent. " This is tiresome. CFC were not listed as a cooling agent. You obviously continue to believe this nonsense is true, so for the last time, either put up where you got this weird idea from or take it back. IPCC lists aerosols as cooling agents in all the reports. You do understand that CFCs are not aerosols?
66707. Rob Painting at 06:12 AM on 11 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       JamesWilson - "Look at the graph of emissions. Why didn't the temperature go flat in 1980 when NA and Europe (twice as high than China now) had higher Sulfate emissions?" Not sure what you expect to have happened, but sulfate emissions (manmade pollution particles) from Europe and North America had begun to decline by about 1980 due to the clean air acts.
66708. DSL at 05:18 AM on 11 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       Excuse me -- I was wrong: I should have said "CFC group gases are used as refrigerants . . ."
66709. DSL at 05:15 AM on 11 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       James, there are plenty of other threads at SkS for the discussion CFCs. I still can't find CFCs listed as a cooling agent in AR4. Total CFC forcing in 2005 was estimated at .268 W m–2. CFCs are used as a refrigerant, if that's what you mean by "cooling." I also don't see where the IPCC is "using sulfates as a replacement." There's no language that indicates a replacement. There's no scientific basis for "replacement." I suggest you make further replies on a more appropriate thread. Also, you strongly suggest that a theory that goes through minor changes is a fraud. If so, it would be a ridiculous charge. Even if what you say about CFCs were true, it would not affect the fundamental theory of AGW: human-sourced atmospheric increases of CO2 will lead to warming. Any cooling effect you can think of will not challenge the basic theory. If the planet's temperature over the last century remained flat steady or declined, that would still not be evidence of a fundamental failure in the theory. You should probably be more transparent in your purpose and targets, and of course you should provide evidence. Both of those actions will prevent you from coming off like someone who is incapable of being wrong or incorporating new evidence. Condescending? Yes, but all I have to go on is what you've written.
66710. CBDunkerson at 04:18 AM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       tmac57, it probably isn't quite as bad as it looks because aerosol pollution is a short term effect while CO2 is long term and cumulative. Put another way... the warming due to CO2 is determined by the area under the red curve, but the cooling due to aerosols is determined by a point on the blue line. Given that the primary source of both CO2 and aerosol pollution is coal power plants it is likely that any significant reduction in CO2 output would be matched by an accompanying reduction in aerosols... and since the total atmospheric level of CO2 would then remain at the accumulated level for centuries while the aerosol load would fall within a few years we can expect a period of accelerated warming if/when this happens. However, because of the cumulative nature of the CO2 forcing we are already seeing a great deal of its resultant warming now... rather than the current temporary aerosol load masking all/most of it.
66711. les at 04:02 AM on 11 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       45 - against. If its long it'll either be great or go off-topic... Which is covered. 46 - yes. But not cartoons, it'll only spoil the jokes. (give or take copyright)
66712. tmac57 at 04:00 AM on 11 January 2012
       Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
       That inverse correlation between aerosols and GhGs in Fig. 2 really has me concerned. That looks like a really serious problem looming if and when we get the Co2 reductions that are needed.
66713. John Hartz at 03:46 AM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       @ DB's Moderator comment in #52: The first graphic embedded in your comment is gibberish to the average reader without a key explaining what each colored line represents and what the heavy black line represents. In addition, the dashed horizonal line is presumably the "base-line" for determing the anomoly. How was this base-line computed?
66714. Martin at 03:15 AM on 11 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       I found the paper "Time of emergence of climate signals" very interesting. Could somebody explain why according to this paper climate singals won't become significant, i.e. emerge before the year 2020 at the earliest and in some cases it will take until 2060? Even if you take into account that they are looking at regions and not global averages, I do remember reading about the heat wave and the fires in Russia being due to global warming. How compatible is that?
66715. Daniel Bailey at 02:58 AM on 11 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       CBD, what is optimal is some form of linked attribution, such as: http://__________ or [Source]
66716. CBDunkerson at 02:51 AM on 11 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Word limits: I'm against it. Yes, some people will ramble on interminably to little benefit... but then there are the huge posts which cover the science in exacting detail and provide tremendous value. Look through some of the posts by visiting scientists (heck, even the long discussions with Pielke) and you'll see what I mean. Better to have no limit and cut down purposelessly excessive posts as needed IMO. Graphic sourcing: Makes sense... though in some cases the URL of the graphic seems sufficient to identify its source. For instance, would we have to document the origin of images from other SkS posts? In general this might be better handled by having a 'standard response' along the lines of, 'without sourcing it is not clear what your graphic depicts / how it was developed'... rather than having people document information on graphics where that information IS clear.
66717. JamesWilson at 02:41 AM on 11 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       GHG ratings are calculated by the IPCC based on the IR frequencies that a molecule absorbs. But since you demand that aerosols reflect copious amounts during their precipitate form let's go with that for a moment. Look at the graph of emissions. Why didn't the temperature go flat in 1980 when NA and Europe (twice as high than China now) had higher Sulfate emissions? Does anyone have a link to actual experiments that show what rate Sulfates reflect light and what matter states they do so? Is this another numerically proven property like CFCs cooling in 2007? I am not saying that there isn't a cooling agent out there in fact I am willing to accept sun spots as that agent. Just that I'd like to see physical properties rather than simulated models for the reasons. You can't prove the physical properties of an object by looking at a numerical model of them (Forcing numbers) The best example I can think of is Laminar flow. They do calculate the wing shape by numerical methods. They prove it works in a wind tunnel and testing the physical properties. They don't calculate a laminar flow wing. Say the math works and then do no physical testing. ie You can prove it with applied physics/engineering you can get an idea with math. There is also some particle physics where they used math to figure it out and observation to prove it. CFCs where listed as a cooling agent in 2007. So when I said that was junk in 2008 I was right. Interestingly it now appears that the IPCC is using Sulfates as a replacement for CFCs as a cooling agent. I keep forgetting that I have to reread the "theories of Global Warming" because they keep changing. Pointing issues with 2007's theory of Global Warming is pointless I guess. (-Snip-)
       Response:

       [DB] The topic of the OP of this thread is the Myth of the Mini Ice Age.

       Please wrap up how these various points you are attempting to make are even tangential to the OP of this thread.  As the others have already pointed out, the science does not support your assertions; you have yet to supply substantive cites for them that bear them out.

       Off-topic snipped.

66718. John Hartz at 02:28 AM on 11 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Another possible change to the Comments Policy under discussion by SkS authors is to require that the source of each graphic included in a comment be properly explained and properly documented, i.e., no naked graphics. Your thoughts?
66719. John Hartz at 02:23 AM on 11 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       One of the possible changes to the Comments Policy bandied about by SkS authors is a word limit on each comment. What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?
66720. gallopingcamel at 01:39 AM on 11 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       (-Snip-)
       Response:

       [DB] Off-topic links to non-science (fake-skeptic) websites snipped.

       Please constrain your comments to conform to the Comments Policy AND to the specific topic of the OP on which you are placing your comment.

       Thank you.

66721. OPatrick at 00:12 AM on 11 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       This will be very interesting to watch as the weeks go by - could you encourage people to send in links to any climate-related stories from the more obscure, from a climatology perspective, journals? I note you have only commented on the Dorman paper (understandably - which of these 13 articles is the one that is going to get repeatedly referred to outside of scientific circles?) But how many of the other articles would also not stand up to sceptical analysis? My entirely uneducated guess is that about half of them would probably turn out to be significantly flawed - peer-review is an important bar, but a low one. I'd be interested in seeing some critical analysis of a range of articles each week.
66722. mspelto at 23:10 PM on 10 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       As a research scientist Ari has provides a valuable service, identifying key papers outside of my specific area of glaciology, that it is important to review each week.
66723. funglestrumpet at 21:57 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       As for WYSIWYG, allow paste, with formatting (possibly limited to certain features such as bold, underline, centre, bullet points, etc?), direct from Microsoft Word. That would have the benefit of spell check and grammar editing available prior to submission. Failing that, improve the guidance on using HTML features (Chrismartenson.com has an excellent help feature regarding posting comments). A worked example of linking to articles and also linking to photos/diagrams would also be of assistance. Regarding moderation; if a person continues with a behaviour that contravenes the comments policy after incurring the 'wrath' of moderators, instead of deleting or banning them, fade all their comments (past and current) on the particular thread so that what they say can still be seen, but easily skipped by those who don't wish to spend time on them. Any responses to those faded comments could also be faded (detection of name or '@X' should be easy, though John Cook might differ). It could also be a requirement that any comment being replied to include the 'name of contributer' and '@X' reference(s) at the top of comments as part of the comments policy. It might be that while off topic, say, what is being raised is of value to the discussion of climate change generally and as such worth having from a wider perspective. I assume here that while SKS is specifically about the science of climate change, what we all want is that action be taken to combat it and getting the science right (fun as it is) is only a means to that end. Also, leaving 'illegal' comments in, but faded, serves as a reminder to others that the comments policy exists and is enforced. Other than that, I find this site far better than most and its comments policy is a major factor in my forming that opinion.
       Response:

       [DB] Note that the existing comments box does contain a spell-check feature (words not in the dictionary are underlined with a wavy red line per Word).

66724. gpwayne at 21:55 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Personally, I feel the moderation policy is just about right - it largely seems fair, patient and appropriate (as much as one can judge). Those who wish to debate in a genuine way should be able to find both a method and means to communicate their ideas without resorting to cliche, deception, demagoguery or unvalidated claims - in the Guardian forum where I post regularly, it is the stuff they don't keep out (but which SkS does) that divert and generally sully the attempts to discuss the valid issues, the science and the facts, such as they are. One thing I would like to suggest, although it would take some work to make this viable: there is always the problem of 'censorship' - not so much the act, but the accusation. Where comments have to be moderated, in part or whole, could the originals not be moved to a read-only 'sin-bin' with a link to it in the original thread. This function could be programmed for moderators (pretty simple, I suspect) so that a click just moved the offending item, but those concerned with what it may have said could still view it, but without such items being obtrusive or disruptive.
66725. Ari Jokimäki at 20:38 PM on 10 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       Pete, an estimate of climate related papers per week is quite difficult to do, as there are lot of journals that are not strictly climate science journals but do include some climate related papers (some environmental or geology journals for example). However, your question about the number of papers made me curious so I think I'll dig into it and make a separate post about it in near future.
66726. Doug Hutcheson at 19:09 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Glenn, Bernard, thanks for the moral support. Sniff. Still think I need a band-aid on my scraped ego. Sniff.
66727. skywatcher at 19:04 PM on 10 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       The irony present in the Dorman abstract is palpable.

       It is well known that the system of internal and external factors formatting the climate is very unstable; decreasing planetary temperature leads to an increase of snow surface, and decrease of the total solar energy input into the system decreases the planetary temperature even more, etc. From this it follows that even energetically small factors may have a big influence on climate change.

       And, so the role of the radiatively powerful CO2 is? The suggestion, using outdated information (as noted above), is that tiny factors can have a big impact 'cos the climate is unstable y'know, yet somehow big factors with an already physically-demonstrated link aren't important? What value of climate sensitivity would they have?
66728. Mark Harrigan at 18:58 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       The current comments policy on this site is exemplary (at least i think so) AND it is generally applied sensibly in a balanced manner to conform with the policy without being TOO rigid. A possible suggestion would be to strengthen it further along the lines of "No claims without substantiation from recognised or peer reviewed science or other established and credible data sources" I would also support some of the ideas about "martyrs" and those who clam to have been treated unfairly by SKS. May I suggest something in this area? I have come across a few people on other sites who claim to have been "victimised" and "censored" by SKS. Investigating these "claims" usually reveals they are persistent pseudo-skeptics and Tiresome Repeaters Of Logical Lacunae Silliness (if you take my acrostic "drift"). This can be ascertained from the "Deleted Comments" section BUT - they are listed ONLY in time order. Would it be possible to also list/group deleted comments by author (and the thread they came from as well)? And for persistent recidivists perhaps publish a "policy" decision as to why they have been blocked/removed that can easily be referred to? May not help on this site but sure helps to dismantle the "victim" claims in other places. Just an idea - but otherwise please keep up the great work - I apprecviate the moderators working hard to make these threads so informative, frequently scientifically erudite and generally very readable. :)
66729. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:32 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Bernard, Doug. Let me second, third, millionth the request for a basic WYSIWYG editor here. I think I just broke another thread with a bad bit of HTML. And I am meant to be one of the team here - hangs head in shame, whimper, whimper.
66730. chirhophoros at 18:29 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       From the Comments Policy: No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives. From muoncounter @ 32: What makes this award-winning behavior is that it is pure unvarnished hypocrisy. From Albatross @ 40: The contrarian, professional slanderer of climate scientists and cherry picker Steve McIntyre. From the Comments Policy: No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. From Mond from Oz @ 24: ...it involves some aspects of 'World Government' And its in the context of a growing realisation that we inevitably face an end to 'Growth', and with that, the collapse of capitalism. Beyond the consequences of drought and storm and shortage, which, despite denial they can see as well as we, lies the challenge to the established hierarchies of government, religion and social order. I assume most of us accept the Law of Non-Contradiction as fundamental to scientific endeavour. Indeed, the BS awards hinge upon the premise that the BS laureates contradict themselves. Would it be too much to ask for similar rigour in the application of the comments policy?
       Response:

       [DB] Note that this comment was originally deleted for tone-trolling, but has been reinstated due to popular demand.

       Given the nature of this thread more latitude is being given than usual in enforcement of the Comments Policy.

       Note: This does not give any license nor free rein to not adhere to the policy; any comment not conforming to the policy at the discretion of the moderator may be summarily deleted without warning.

       References to comments deleted by moderators struck out.

66731. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:26 PM on 10 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       I didn't get past the Introduction in Dorman before the alarm bells went off: "It is now obvious, according to past data on large variations in planetary surface temperature over timescales of many thousands (even millions) of years, that the Earth’s global climate change is determined not only by internal factors but also by factors originating in space." What a huge statement to open a paper with. Surely the purpose of a paper is to draw a conclusion rather than state it outright. Even wording like "In this paper we will show that ....." If any scientist wants to be taken seriously they need to pay serious heed to the dry, conservative, dot every i, cross every t language of science. It is there for a reason. Great to see this series up Ari. Hopefully it will help the wider audience here become aware of just how much research is being done, by so manny people around the world. It isn't just the James Hansen's of the world. Its all the dedicated & (largely, see rant above) diligent worker ants of science that are looking at every thing from every angle that is the real story here. It would be interesting to see a skeptic version of this report. How many skeptical papers per week? ... (chirrupping of crickets.....)
66732. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:08 PM on 10 January 2012
       Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
       DeWitt Payne @8 Sort of true. The satellites have three sensors that read microwaves at slightly different frequencies. These each record for three nominal altitude bands - Mid Troposphere, Upper Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere. The first 2 have roughly 20 & 50% of their signals respectively originating from the lower stratosphere. Incontrasr the 3rd sensor only gets about 5% of its signal from the Upper Troposphere. What you are referring to is a 4th 'pseudo-sensor'. RSS & UAH take the data from the first, mid-tropspheric centred sensor and apply additional processing that removes much of the stratospheric bias (although not all) and also produces a result that is centred in the Lower Troposphere. This is the data series (referred to as TLT) that is usually shown as the headline 'Atmospheric Temperature' However the other series are taken from the 3 sensors without this additional processing so they show data that still contains the stratospheric bias. Also there is another group that is doing satellite temp series with some quite different processing methods and they are showing significantly higher readings for the mid-Troposphere sensor. As yet they haven't produced a TLT product although they apparently plan to. http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/mscatmain.htm
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed link.

66733. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:44 PM on 10 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       Pirate You might to want to read this link. Their estimate is that Milankovitch forcing at present is around 0.0 to -0.1 W/M^2. Over an entire Milankovich Cycle it is 3.4 W.M^2. In contrast a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/M^2. And even at the current 393 ppm that is already around 1.8 W/M^2 http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles GC "What difference will it make if Scafetta is vindicated?" Wrong question. "What difference will it make if Scafetta is NOT vindicated?" If we have the rising temps predicted, then by the time we have waited decades and decades to vindicate or not Scafetta, if he is not vindicated we are locked into a dangerous higher temperature future. So we would need profoundly strong reasons for thinking he was right, where as we have profoundly strong reasons for thing that the current understanding of Climate is right enough.
       Response:

       [DB] Hot-linked url.

66734. gallopingcamel at 16:22 PM on 10 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       The pirate made his case. Much of the Holocene was warmer than the present. Take a look at some hard science for a change. The ACRIM satellite shows some interesting correlations between Earth's climate and the gyrations of Saturn and Jupiter. Astrology you say? Westrology all know that correlation does not imply causation but one has to admit that Scafetta's model does a better job than any of the IPCC's models when it comes to back casting. Looking ahead, Scafetta says that temperatures are going to trend downwards while the IPCC predicts the opposite. Scafetta may be wrong but he has put forward a testable hypothesis. We won't have to wait very long to find out if his predictive skills are better than the IPCC's. One is predicting rising temperatures to 2100 while the other is predicting oscillating temperatures. What difference will it make if Scafetta is vindicated?
       Response:

       [DB] "Much of the Holocene was warmer than the present."

       Unsubstantiated and incorrect.  Unless by present you mean about 1950 or so.  The graphic apirate uses goes through 2004 (hint:  the arrow points to it...and it is above the level of the HCO):

       

       Note the temperatures in 2004 relative to 2010:

       

       The present is clearly warmer than 2004 and thus the HCO.  QED.

       For greater explication of the first graphic above, please see Tom Curtis' comment at number 9 above in this thread.

66735. KR at 15:58 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       A simple suggestion - rename the Comments link to Recent Comments, which is both far more accurate and more of a lead-in as to where recent conversations are occurring?
66736. Bernard J. at 15:52 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Scaddenp at #34. Ah, too simple. It's bleeding obvious that I ignored the headline linkies to my detriment! [And speaking of bleeding, move across a bit Doug H...]
66737. Doug Hutcheson at 15:40 PM on 10 January 2012
       2011 Year in Review (part 2)
       Thanks Mark. Another tiny typo, I think: "frozen likes in Siberia".
66738. Pete Dunkelberg at 15:20 PM on 10 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       Ari gives a small selection of a far larger number of papers on climate and related matters published each week. Scientists ate busy people! Does anyone have an estimate of how many climate papers are published per week? Two of Ari's papers this week might well be analyzed together, if one had the text: the first one, relating El Niño and the NAO http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011JD016493.shtml and about the seventh, relating Westerlies and the NAO http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3416/abstract
66739. Doug Hutcheson at 15:14 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Aaaaaarghhhh! Stoopid me didn't notice you meant the Comments link on the site header. Sigh. Mumble. That's why I'm only worth $0.02 before inflation. [Crawls back under rock, bleeding]
66740. Doug Hutcheson at 15:12 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       I agree with Bernard J that a gadget providing links to currently active threads would be nice. Just clicking on the comments link for a given thread, as suggested by scaddenp, does not do the same thing. I frequently encounter threads here and elsewhere that have been inactive by the time I come along with my $0.02 worth (no, really, that's all my guff is worth :). On the topic of moderation, I think this site is a shining example of probity and balance. I just don't know where the mods find the time. Please accept this as a pat on the back.
66741. Pete Dunkelberg at 14:56 PM on 10 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       Week after week Ari highlights a collection of interesting new papers. I'm glad to see his Papers of the Week getting more prominence. The review of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf as a source of greenhouse gasses (Semilitov et al.) is fine as far as it goes but it ends with old data for these gasses (CO2 and CH4). I hope this is just to prepare the way for another paper with the new numbers.
       Response:

       [DB] Work nears completion on the first of a series of posts on the ESAS.

66742. muoncounter at 14:42 PM on 10 January 2012
       New research from last week 1/2012
       The Dorman 2012 paper on cosmic rays is worse than you indicate. I particularly like this statement in the abstract: ... it follows that even energetically small factors may have a big influence on climate change. In our opinion, the most important of these factors are cosmic rays and cosmic dust through their influence on clouds, and thus, on climate. -- emphasis added - He primarily cites data from 2000 and ignores newer data - He ignores Dragic 2011's findings of pitifully insignificant effects on climate from 40+ years of Forbush decreases. See this discussion. - He relies heavily on the Maunder: The importance of cosmic ray influence on climate compared with the influence of solar irradiation can be seen clearly during the Maunder minimum, without providing any evidence of how the influence of low solar output can be separated from higher cosmic ray flux. This is correlation without causation. - He cites Enghoff et al 2011 as some form of experimental confirmation of cosmic ray induced ionization. However, Enghoff used a 580 MeV electron beam, which bears no resemblance to either CERN CLOUD's experiment or GCRs of any significance. Even worse, Enghoff notes that he can see the same effect using low energy gamma rays from natural radioactive decay. What does this have to do with GCRs? See this prior discussion. And of course, there's no mention of the Laschamp magnetic lull. No CR-climate connection booster will touch that with a 10 foot pole. But I have no doubt that the pro-Svensmark lobby will be shouting from the rooftops about this.
66743. Rob Painting at 14:34 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Tristan - the Poptech deletion was my mistake. I don't know if you saw the performance by a poster called Bulla the other day, but Poptech was doing the same thing - taunting the moderator and asking for deletion by repeatedly contravening the comments policy. I wasn't going to stick around all night deleting his worthless comments and so hit the spam button. Didn't realize it deleted all his posts. Oops. Clearly we need some kind of 'timeout' function, so that moderators can deal with these kinds of people on-the-spot. The strength of SkS is that you can actually have a rational science-based discussion. That's not possible on most other climate blogs.
66744. dana1981 at 14:34 PM on 10 January 2012
       It's a climate shift step function caused by natural cycles
       Thanks Bernard. The beauty is that it's purely artificial with a linear warming trend built in as the cause of the long-term trend, and yet it can easily be fit with a step function. This is exactly what the fake skeptics are doing with the temperature data - taking a linear trend with cycles superimposed on top of it, and playing curve fitting games with step functions. Tamino did a good job showing the same thing in the post that you link.
66745. scaddenp at 14:20 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Bernard J. Just open the "comments" link on the top. Shows you all the recent comments. Easy to see where the action is.
66746. actually thoughtful at 14:19 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Scaddenp @30 - Why cart off the bodies? Leave them in-thread - this is what happens when you bring your anti-science to SkS - an object lesson in what the comments policy really means. That way the comments policy isn't just something that is linked to when we screw up - you see its effect everywhere, and those who would like to troll the site will quickly learn there is no profit, but their silliness is available for all to hear (to the pain) and see.
66747. Bernard J. at 14:13 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       I know that John Hartz asked to keep this discussion focussed on the comments policy, but this is tangential so perhaps my diversion will be tolerated...? I have been wondering for a while if there is any way that Skeptical Science can include on its front page a list of most recent active threads. Sometimes there is a vibrant discussion occurring on old threads, but no outward sign that it's occurring if one doesn't have the actual thread up. I think that Skeptical Science is currently the only climate-related blog of note that doesn't have such a list. I apologise profusely if I am digressing too much.
66748. actually thoughtful at 14:09 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       Another idea for trolls is this - say a typical article (written, of course, by Dana1981). The header would include "troll warrior: Daniel Bailey". So we the people would understand that any troll comments would be addressed by DB, and DB only. In this way we could count on the troll getting corrected (and more importantly, future readers) and not clog the thread with endless "please provide your sources or retract your unfounded claim; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; In order for your point to be valid you would need to explain why CO2 isn't causing the warming" and on and on and on and on. This would require a behavior change by the rank and file, but I have faith in this community getting the hang of it (especially if moderators start deleting non troll warrior response to the troll...). I do think we should be careful what we wish for. Sometimes it is quite enjoyable to set someone on the one true path (boot to the head) - if you look at the vast majority of posts that have more than 50 comments - it is the battle against a willfully ignorant person that adds the heat and comments to the thread. And then size attracts posts and on it goes. Does SkS want to give that up? I honestly don't know if that is good for the site or not.
66749. scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 10 January 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
       This is good point. Final post(s)(when terminated) could be moved to equivalent of RC's Bore hole. This also needs a convenient method for moderators to move a post from one thread to another.
66750. skywatcher at 13:57 PM on 10 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       Maybe an award to JamesWilson for the most entertainingly incorrect posts? CFCs introduced as a cooling agent, and IPCC thinking sulphates as warming agents - two perfectly backwards statements compared with the truth...

Prev  1327  1328  1329  1330  1331  1332  1333  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  Next