Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 Next
Comments 66951 to 67000:
-
Pete Dunkelberg at 14:48 PM on 9 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Comment policy - agree with Stevo @ 3. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:16 PM on 9 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Basically we're looking for user inputs. This site is for you, the user; what we'd like to hear is what you like about the Comments Policy, dislike about it, and any suggestions for improvement you may have. About the Comments Policy or any other present or desired aspect of the site. Such as by Chris G above WRT the image posting tips. I know one thing I'd like to see is the addition of WYSIWYG capabilities to the comments posting box. -
Stevo at 13:46 PM on 9 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Agreeing with Chris. Which aspects of comments policy are you looking at changing? As for the current comments policy, I regard it as the great strength of this site. Please keep it just as it is. -
Chris G at 12:58 PM on 9 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Oh yeah, I still think it would be more clear if the tip on how to link a picture were changed to something like: ‹a href="URL of the page containing the picture"›‹img width="450" src="URL of the picture within that page"›‹/a› -
Chris G at 12:47 PM on 9 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Regarding the comments policy, I think they have done a good job of reducing noise in the comments. I do think short (say ~12 words) copies from what someone else wrote are an acceptable means of identifying a key point of contention, particularly if the previous comment was longish and contained multiple points. However, I concede that copy-paste can lead to clutter and abuse, and so allowing any at all puts more of a burden on the moderators than may be worthwhile. Can you hint at what aspects are being discussed, or would that taint the results? One of my peeves at other sites is the posting of a naked URL; please tell me what you think I should take away from the information there. It is seldom worthwhile to read pages of information and then have to guess at what the linker thinks it means. There are others more important, but that one is a distinguishing feature. Of course, I've only gotten called on policy once that I recall; so, I'm biased toward leaving it as it is. -
skywatcher at 11:56 AM on 9 January 20122011 Expected to be Second Warmest Year on Record for the UK
Scotland's wettest year on record... as a Scot I can say that takes some doing! Of course it's in line with the expected rise in precipitation as the world warms, and observations of (much more damaging) flooding in many parts of the world. I saw recently a graphic by Jeff Masters showing Decembers of the past six years have had the two most extreme positive and two most extreme negative Arctic Oscillation indices on record. This has significant consequences for UK weather, as seen in the past two winters. I wonder if such dramatic AO variation will be a feature of the future? -
skywatcher at 11:39 AM on 9 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
DMarshall, in addition to Rob's point, why should professional scientists waste time debunking the latest misinformation in the long line from Watts, especially when the data is available for anyone to carry out the experiment? After Menne et al, Fall et al (which Watts was a co-author), and now BEST, Watts' surface stations ideas are utterly dead in the water, scientifically. Watts just fails to accept that. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 11:22 AM on 9 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
climatewatcher.@3. Since you haven't given the source for your graphics it is very hard to make a judgement about them. If they are radiosonde based, you need to be very careful which series you are using since a great deal of work has gone into correcting problems with them, particularly issues related to instrumentation changes and problems with temperature measurements at higher altitude. If it is the satellite data you are referencing, you need to be aware that of the 4 temperature series produced by UAH & RSS, only their lower Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere series are relatively uncontaminated by mixing Trop & Strat temps together although the lower Troposphere series still has issues with larger error margins due to the processing methods needed and more contamination from ground sourced signals. The Mid Troposphere series is biased low because around 20% of its signal actually originates from the Stratosphere. Even more so the Upper Troposphere series is sourced nearly 50/50 from the actual Upper Troposphere and the Lower Stratosphere. As such it is actually worthless as a true measure of Upper Tropospheric warming. I comment on some of these issues here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Eschenbach_satellite_part.html and here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Primer-Tropospheric-temperature-measurement-Satellite.html -
Tom Curtis at 11:07 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
pirate @33, you now claim that: 1) The overall temperature pattern will stay the same even though humanity have radically altered the level CO2 (from your response to my 24); and 2) CO2 is a positive forcing that is increasing (from your response to Tmac at 33). Given the scale of the CO2 increase relative to normal glacial levels, and the scale of likely future anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels as shown by DB, these claims are only consistent if net feedbacks are negative so that the increase in temperature due to increased CO2 is much less than the 1.2 degree C increase expected from doubling CO2 with no feedbacks. Not only does such a low response fly in the face of all the evidence on climate sensitivity; but it is also inconsistent with such large temperature changes between glacials and interglacials as shown in the chart you presented. That change is almost entirely due to feedbacks on a locally large but globally very small (<< 1 w/m^2) milankovitch forcing, and if feedbacks are net negative, such a large feedback is in fact impossible. Consequently your beliefs as presented in this thread (because they are contradictory) are not even rational, let alone based on the scientific evidence. -
Tom Curtis at 10:57 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
pirate @40, it is by no means obvious that we would currently be heading into an ice age even without human generated CO2. Based on modelling, the current milankovitch forcings are such that we would enter an ice age only with CO2 concentrations below 220 ppmv
Caption:
(My emphasis. Source, Berger and Loutre 2002) As I have argued elsewhere, it is by no means clear that we would have entered an ice age without pre-industrial anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but it is certainly clear that we will no with industrial CO2 emissions. At least, not for the next 50,000 years. I would suggest, however, that this topic is off topic for this thread."Orbiting the Sun. Long-term variations of eccentricity (top), June insolation at 65°N (middle), and simulated Northern Hemisphere ice volume (increasing downward) (bottom) for 200,000 years before the present to 130,000 from now. Time is negative in the past and positive in the future. For the future, three CO2 scenarios were used: last glacial-interglacial values (solid line), a human-induced conc entration of 750 ppmv (dashed line), and a constant concentration of 210 ppmv (dotted line)." -
Tom Curtis at 10:40 AM on 9 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
climatewatcher @3, the upper tropospheric hotspot is not an predicted consequence of greenhouse warming per se, but of any warming, whether due to changes in solar forcing, green house forcing, albedo or internal variability, and is a consequence of increased absolute humidity reducing the lapse rate. The one certain consequence of those predictions being wrong is that the lapse rate feedback, an important negative feedback will not be as strong as expected. The lack of the hotspot certainly does not call into question the fact that the Earth is warming, as can be seen in the surface measurements in all your illustrations. Therefore, as it is a predicted consequence of all forms of warming, it cannot call into question warming by greenhouse gases. Further, there is good reason to question the accuracy of all the measurements used by you. In particular, the satellite measurements use a channel that detects a signal from both the troposphere and the stratosphere, which is cooling. There is good reason to think that neither RSS and (particularly) UAH have completely removed the stratospheric signal, a fact that would obscure the existence of the hotspot. Other evidence suggests the hotspot in fact exists, although the science continues to remain very ambiguous on this point. Further discussion on this point is best conducted on the tropospheric hotspot thread where much of the relevant evidence is already presented in the main article. -
dana1981 at 09:57 AM on 9 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
CW @3, please learn the difference between 'pattern' and 'trend'. Also see our 'hot spot' rebuttals. -
OPatrick at 09:47 AM on 9 January 20122011 Expected to be Second Warmest Year on Record for the UK
As Dave123 says, focusing on one year can be misleading, but "all the UK's top seven warmest years happened in the last decade" is an important message to emphasise. Also the apparent variation in the weather seems important - is this measurably unusual? Uncertainty is the greatest concern, the UK weather seems to be demonstrating uncertainty in spades. But then maybe it always has. -
Rob Painting at 09:11 AM on 9 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
DMarshall - if that happened the goalposts would simply be shifted. Remember Watts said he would accept the results of BEST and now he doesn't. The fake-skeptics are too psychologically invested in denial to accept the 'inconvenient truth.' -
calyptorhynchus at 09:05 AM on 9 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Very good rebuttal, but "Unfortunately, the article contained a litany of errors...", a litany is not a list, it is a series of supplications to God.Response:[DB] I believe definition #2 is in play:
lit·a·ny/?litn-?/
Noun: - A series of petitions for use in church services, usually recited by the clergy and responded to in a recurring formula by the people.
- A tedious recital or repetitive series.
-
DMarshall at 09:01 AM on 9 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
What harm would there be in asking the BEST authors to reanalyze the data over a 30 year cycle. If the warming trend is clear, as we expect, then shutting WUWT up is well worth the trouble. Giving Watts a way to weasel out of keeping his word only emboldens the contrarians. -
scaddenp at 08:16 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
You might also note that milankovich forcings have always been with us but can only initiate an glacial/interglacial cycle when GHG concentrations are low enough for the ice-albedo feedbacks to be significant. -
scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
"Is there definitive proof that the effect of the GHGs is enough to override the orbital factors as we should be heading into another glacial period?" "proof" and science have a difficult relationship. However, since the forcing due to GHG is larger than the forcing due to milankovich, is that arithmetic inequality a good enough proof for you? ie maximum milankovich forcing per century at 65N at 0.25W/m2 cf 1.66W/m2 for CO2 alone for whole globe? -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:34 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apirate... "Is there definitive proof that the effect of the GHGs is enough to override the orbital factors as we should be heading into another glacial period?" To more directly answer that question I would have to say that science understands the amount of forcing coming from orbital cycles and those very much pale in comparison to the radiative properties of man-made GHG's. I believe the data is contained within Caillon 2003 that muoncounter linked to. This is also discussed in Miller 2010 where they state that orbital factors are actually acting to drive a "neo-glacial" cycle starting about 5000 years ago. What we've done is counteracted that orbital forcing with anthropogenic GHG's. The uncertainties outside of "settled science" have to do with other factors. No one here would ever claim that climate science has this locked down. There is always more to know. That we are driving warming is settled science. Exactly how the climate system will respond to that warming is still uncertain. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:26 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apirate.... With glacial-interglacial cycles GHG's work to amplify the signal coming from orbital forcing, as do other things like ice albedo. The noise is just the way the climate responds to those forcing and feedbacks over shorter periods. The "definitive proof" is merely physics. We know what atmospheric gases have radiative properties. We have clearly quantified those radiative properties and we can measure the radiative imbalance resulting from increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. That's the settled science. As Stephen Schneider stated in the video I posted a week or so ago, "You can't add 4W/m-2 to the entire surface of the earth and expect nothing will happen." The noise is a function of the climate system itself. Climate is complex and it responds in a wide variety of ways whether the forcing is from orbital factors or it's us adding GHG's. The direction of the forcing is clear. The shorter term ups and downs are expected and somewhat unpredictable. The trend is predictable. Can you predict how far up the beach each wave will reach? No. Can you predict whether the tide is coming in or going out? Yes. That's basic physics. Within the glacial-interglacial cycle can you perfectly model the shorter term noise of warming and cooling? No. Can you model the glacial-interglacial cycles themselves? Yes. It's basic physics. -
ClimateWatcher at 07:11 AM on 9 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Modeled is upper left. RATPAC (raobs) is lower left. UAH MSU is upper right. RSS MSU is lower right:
General warming trend in the troposphere and cooling trend in the stratosphere do appear to be corroborated by the observations.
The tropical upper tropospheric hot spot and a general maxima of warming aloft appear to be contradicted by the observations.
Response:[DB] It is considered good form to also publish the paternity of graphics used in one's comments. For example, the URL of your graphic is:
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/.../gse_multipart51047.png
Which unfortunately tells us nothing of the sources used for the images.
-
Dave123 at 07:04 AM on 9 January 20122011 Expected to be Second Warmest Year on Record for the UK
Should we be reporting this, interesting as it is, when we keep saying (correctly) that it's about global temperatures? I understand that the context is about UK temperatures being used by Deniers, but maybe that should be how the article is written? -
John Hartz at 07:00 AM on 9 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
@ Dana: There's a broken link embedded in "climate denialist" -- first sentence of first paragraph in the Rapid Global Warming section. -
Bibliovermis at 06:49 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Pirate, Continuing the analogy of cyclical climate change as tidal rising & ebbing, GHG increase would translate to adding more volume to the sea. There would be variation along the trend. Sea level would still periodically fall, with the ebb point being, not consistently, higher than the previous rise points. -
muoncounter at 06:37 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
pirate#40: "Other factors along the way are the noise. That would include GHGs." A leap of illogic. You must know by now that Milankovitch variations are small and require feedback in order to cause large scale temperature changes. GHGs provide that feedback and hence are not noise. "Is there definitive proof that the effect of the GHGs is enough to override the orbital factors" The very curve you posted (and seem to think is the key exhibit here) shows just how GHGs amplify - not override - orbital factors. Are you familiar with Caillon et al 2003? CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing , which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. If you profess to understand the 'CO2 lags temperature' argument (which you seem to find so compelling), you have some homework to do. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:28 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
"Is there definitive proof that the effect of the GHGs is enough to override the orbital factors as we should be heading into another glacial period?"
That would depend on what your meaning of "definitive proof" is. Try Tyrrell 2007 and updated info found in Tyrrell 2011:"the next ice age (or the next several ice ages) may be avoided"
-
apiratelooksat50 at 06:12 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Rob at 35 The tide rises and ebbs due to the influence of the gravitational forces of the moon. There are other factors involved that create the "noise". If we apply that analogy to the temperature/Milankovitch cycle connection then the orbital forcing correlate with the moon's gravity. Other factors along the way are the noise. That would include GHGs. Is there definitive proof that the effect of the GHGs is enough to override the orbital factors as we should be heading into another glacial period? Thanks for you civil tone and I am willing to listen. -
Alexandre at 06:12 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
OT: Very funny song from some Australian chaps: Denial Tango. This verse pretty much sums up the denial attitude: "I'm skeptical of everything I just don't wanna know" -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:59 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Muon at 29 and DB at 32 That's pretty funny. Just make sure you aren't becoming this guy. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:49 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apiratelooksat50 says:"When the temperature in red begins to match the CO2 in blue, I will concede."
It already has begun to do so. Perhaps you missed the graphic Tom Curtis has so thoughtfully provided for edification purposes in Comment 10 above?"It is going to take quite some time before we can say for sure."
Actually, we can tell that it already has. You continue to argue, with no supportive evidence, that "It's Not Us". That you repeatedly choose to deny the science, as a science teacher, is both ironic and revealing. You are simply trolling now. Everyone: I suggest we no longer continue to feed this troll. -
scaddenp at 05:46 AM on 9 January 2012Models are unreliable
If the temperatures end up outside the range of the models, then that would be interesting. Remember every model run represents a possible future climate given those forcings. I would expect Ar5 to be better absolutely. It will probably reflect ongoing research into the aerosol effect and size of current aerosol forcing. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:26 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
33, Pirate,CO2 is a player, but not the driver.
This is false, and a mere assertion on your part. We've been over the science on this, and you made no effort to refute it. Do you have a case to make that supports your contention? Something that amounts to at least a little more than "gee, this has never happened before, so it can't be happening now"? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:34 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apirate... The "sawtooth pattern" you see in the longer geologic record is actually much more similar to the tide example being used. There is a known forcing causing those changes. With the tide it's the moon orbiting the earth. With the glacial-interglacial cycles it's the rather more complex pattern of Milankovitch cycles. What's being explained by the video is the noise over the signal in both of these cases. As the moon "forces" the sea level to rise the noise over the signal is the waves coming in. Some big ones, some small ones, but over time all leading to a rise. As orbital factors "force" the climate out of a glacial cycle there is noise over the signal of warming and cooling occurring along the way, but all with a trend toward warming. With climate today the "force" is us through our changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere with the burning of fossil fuels. That creates the trend. Within that trend there is the variation. That trend will only change and begin coming down when the forcing changes direction. -
muoncounter at 04:11 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
pirate#33 "I am not conflating the two." Conflation: ... the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one does often produce error or misunderstanding, as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts. You took an example of pseudo-random variations about a long term trend and an example of forced variations and stated, "it's classic sawtooth pattern shows pretty much the same movements as the video clip." Your words, "pretty much the same" seem to me to treat the two as if they are one. Such apples and oranges comparisons are of no value to the teaching of science; in fact, they lead to logical fallacies. "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is." As a science teacher, you should be aware of the dangers in modeling this behavior. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:50 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Muon at 23 No, I am not conflating the two. I am extending the concept to long term instead of short term. In your mind, what is forcing the variation in the sawtooth graph? TC at 24 No to your first paragraph and yes to your second. Tmac at 26 I plainly stated that CO2 is a positive forcing that is increasing. DSL at 27 Do you think there is not a natural cycle? There certainly is one – look at the graph. Humans have only been radically altering the planet for a very short geological time. DB at 28 When the temperature in red begins to match the CO2 in blue, I will concede. It is going to take quite some time before we can say for sure. In the meantime we should all be doing the “right” things as I’ve posted before. Including, but not limited to: conservation and developing new energy sources. Muon at 29 The Earth’s temperature certainly rises and falls because it must. CO2 is a player, but not the driver. Sweet at 30 I am saying that CO2 and temperature interact in a complicated way. All you have to do is look at the lag. So, no to the presumption of your last paragraph. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:28 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
muoncounter Indeed, apiratelooksat50's defense is as porous as that of the Detroit Lions. Basically, the point is to chase the guy with the ball to the end zone repeatedly, with the hopes that he eventually gets tired and stops. Essentially the football version of how to catch a knuckleball. -
Tom Curtis at 03:14 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
michael sweet @30, you have over interpreted the graph. The temperature indications are for local, Antarctic temperatures, not global temperatures. Daniel Bailey's equivalent graph @28 is scaled for global temperature changes. Further, GHG forcings only represent about 45% of the total forcings going from glacial to interglacial, with the rest coming from albedo changes. Therefore the expected temperature change from the increase in CO2 is well short of of 12 degrees C. -
michael sweet at 02:58 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Pirate: it is still not clear what you are claiming. If you mean that temperature and CO2 are linked, which the data in the graphs you posted supports, then Tom's graph here shows that we should expect a temperature rise of about 12C (!!) from the current CO2 level. How high will it have to go before you are worried? Or are you suggesting that the temperature is not linked to CO2 at all and we should expect the previous glacial cycle to continue? Can you provide a cite to support such an extraordinary claim? -
muoncounter at 02:38 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
DB, pirate's failed 'tides must ebb' analogy actually reveals a wide hole in his defensive line. Tides rise and fall because they must - not because of random perturbations; tides are 'forced.' Temperature rises because it must - it is forced by the physical environment. CO2 is a massive change in that environment. What environmental change does pirate envision - on a time frame comparable with the recent warming - that will force temperatures back down? Or have we come back to those 'natural cycles'? An argument as lucid as 'the Great Pumpkin'? -
Daniel Bailey at 02:17 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
Agreed, DSL. Bulla was here simply to troll for reactions. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:13 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
For the lay reader, apiratelooksat50 has a background in teaching science at the high school level in the US, plus a professional career in environmental science. For over a year he has been following an agenda of "It's not happening", "It's not us", "It's not bad". Now he has seemingly moved on to the "It's a natural cycle" meme. My take on his most recent comment above is that he has carefully crafted his statement to imply that, since all the previous 'oscillations' of Temps and CO2 showed lockstep integration of peaks & valleys that somehow, mystically, temps will 'drag down' CO2 (because, surely, with his background he cannot be intimating that the well-understood radiative physics of CO2 do not apply to fossil-fuel-derived CO2, can he?)... If so, his comment is crafted on presumption. The presumption that CO2, normally acting as a feedback of temperatures, can not also act as a forcing (which it can) on temperatures. Therefore, one can only infer at what the temperature response will eventually be to the rise of CO2 that mankind has caused (the rate of which is higher than anything during the last 255 million years, covering multiple mass extinctions):
-
DSL at 02:09 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
As someone who works closely with language every day, let me strongly suggest that "bulla" is not being honest with his/her "dialect." It would be extraordinary if someone actually managed to misspell some of the words bulla has misspelled in the way that they are misspelled. Bulla is most likely a troll looking for someone to go "ivory tower" on him/her. -
DSL at 02:04 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
When and why, Pirate, will it ebb? Sometime after humans stop pouring GHGs to the atmosphere? Or in the next 20 years, due to some as-of-yet-undiscovered natural cycle? -
tmac57 at 01:58 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Pirate#22- It is disingenuious to extend the analogy in the manner that you did.For that comparison to hold,there would have to be no other positive forcings in the level of the ocean other than the moon's gravity.Are you denying that CO2 is a positive forcing that is increasing? -
Tom Curtis at 01:51 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
As pirate has raised the issue of the basis of the saw tooth pattern of the dog's wanderings, the following is the smoothed annual values of the GISS global-land ocean temperature index from 1992 to 2010 for comparison:
The resemblance to the dog's path is striking. However, no part of the video's logical point depends on that comparison. However, as Muoncounter notes above, comparison of the pattern with forced variations operating over thousands of years entirely misses the point.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:42 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apiratelooksat50 @22, so your point was to show that "the overall pattern stays the same" in the same way that the overall pattern of CO2 levels has stayed the same:
Is that right? Or was your point that the overall temperature pattern will stay the same even though humanity have radically altered the level of one of the main forcing agents?
-
muoncounter at 01:42 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
pirate#22, Are you conflating forced variation (what you call the 'classic sawtooth pattern' of glacial cycles) with the pseudo-random tendencies of a dog on leash? Forced variation is not 'perturbation.' This was about short-term variation on an underlying trend, which has nothing to do with the graphs you post. The tide will indeed ebb, because it is driven by the interaction between the moon and the earth. The appropriate analogy here would be: What would the tides look like if we added substantial mass to the moon? -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:34 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
The point of the graphs I posted were to show the long term patterns and trends as the original post and video showed. Especially the longer graph with it's classic sawtooth pattern shows pretty much the same movements as the video clip. The Earth's temperature oscillates over time in a fairly regular pattern. Sure, there are perturbations within the overall movements. Certainly CO2 is a GHG. Certainly human activities affect CO2 levels. But, the overall pattern stays the same. And, FWIW the tide on that beach with the cartoon dog is going to ebb. We can't forget that. -
bulla at 01:32 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
is it that you are challenged buy the usumptioms that i posercuteModerator Response: [muoncounter] Given that you feel free to 'override the known laws of physics,' not a bit. Further comments of this sort will be deleted without discussion. Adieu. -
bulla at 00:54 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
so now we have it from the horses mouth atomics is not a scienceModerator Response: [muoncounter] Atomic science is a science. 'Atomics' was used by Asimov in the Foundation series as a catch-all for anything using atomic power.Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum. Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing. Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Prev 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 Next
