Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 Next
Comments 67001 to 67050:
-
actually thoughtful at 13:49 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
Tristan's points are well made - the challenge I see for SkS is the perception of unfairness (obviously not true) that deleted posts leave in their wake. Much better, as Tristan so colorfully put it for "certain heads (to) remain affixed to the pikes of their own devising". Then when we are doing battle on another site, and the troll claims they were treated unfairly, we can find their posts and expose their (presumably still false) claims for what they are (again, but this time on the other site). Hoist them high, by their own petard. -
skywatcher at 13:40 PM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
Nice summary Mark, good to have a go-to for some of the key new research. A quick typo - Knutti and Hegerl is 2008, not 2006 (as twice referenced). -
Daniel Bailey at 13:30 PM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Gidget is a conflation of gadget and widget...all in portent of what you are working on, 'cause 'tis 'portant... -
Bob Lacatena at 13:24 PM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Dan, What the heck is a "gidget"? Do you even know what "gidget" means? Gidget (character) Gidget (TV series) Gidget (Film) -
Tristan at 13:18 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I'm a big fan of the way comments are handled. It's very useful for people learning about the state of the science (such as myself) to be able to read the back and forth between those from different camps. It's heartening and educational to see the smackdowns. The only time I've been bothered by the comments policy is when people get erased. I think for instance that deleting 250 posts from one stubborn fellow lets him claim martyrdom and just leaves a bunch of contextless replies. Better that certain heads remain affixed to the pikes of their own devising. It's important evidence. Perhaps when conversations are sufficiently long and circular they can be moved from the main thread and linked to with an appropriate explanation. Often when I link 'skeptics' here one will pipe up 'you'll just get disappeared like me after I started winning the argument'. Moving, rather than deleting will quash these fanciful notions. Of course, the general policy of warnings followed by probation works wonders in the cases where moderators have the time and energy to engage in that. -
Fran Barlow2 at 13:16 PM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
[It may be worth while having some threads or posts preserved as examples of what fails the various tests of the comments policy.] Yes ... that's a good idea. A page (not open to comments) which gave examples/extracts from actual posts received, showing why they hadn't been published and where links to comprehensive debunkings were. Then when someone's effort was deleted, they could be referred with a link to the relevant section(s) of that page. -
scaddenp at 13:07 PM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Also, "Oh and here is the IPCC talking about Sulfate as a greenhouse gas. (ie warming) http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/310.htm" Read it more carefully. It shows that including sulphate (a negative forcing) in combination with the positive forcing of CO2 gives better match to actual data than just using CO2 alone. It references sections of 2nd IPCC WG1 report in support of that which you should do, though careful reading of the paragraph after the figure also makes that clear. The IPCC definitely does not think that sulphates are greenhouse "gases". -
muoncounter at 12:54 PM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
JamesWilson mentioned that CFCs were "much more of a GHG than CO2. Lending them actually higher credibility as the driver of Global Warming" on a prior thread. This assertion is unsupported, primarily because it is absolutely incorrect. The GWP values in the table linked here should be convincing enough: CO2: 1.76 W/m^2; CFC-12 0.17 W/m^2; other halocarbons an order of magnitude less. These values are based on current (12/2011) atmospheric concentrations. But if not, how about this graph?
So until we have our facts straight, let us dispense with the basic physics lectures, the instructions to Google this or that and the misquotes from IPCC documents -- all in favor of fostering a more civil discourse.
-
Bob Lacatena at 12:29 PM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
13, calywhatever, Are you serious? Type "litany" into Google. Look at the definition that Google displays at the top of the page. Or click on the dictionary.reference.com link. Or click on the Merriam-Webster link. Or the thefreedictionary.com link. Or actually pick up a dictionary. You really have to be kidding me. You're in denial about what a fricking word means?Response:[DB] And with that, let us close this chapter on the definition of words, lest we again question the definition of is...(unless it's an unknown scientific term, such discussion is now OT on this thread).
My kingdom for a built-in dictionary gidget...
-
Bob Lacatena at 11:50 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
37, scaddenp, I think James on the thermal conductivity point was actually making a point in favor of GHG theory, i.e. arguing against people that discount radiation as a major factor. This is only a guess, but I don't think he actually ascribes to that position himself (based on the rest of his writing). -
scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Some more finer points. "GHG ratings by the IPCC are defined by how many frequencies of IR a gas absorbs" By "ratings" you mean GWP? If so then only part of the story. Sulphates might absorb IR but they are not gases (they are aerosols) and mostly act within climate as reflectors to incoming light. Right at start of IPCC report, you have this graphic clearly stating CFC (halocarbons) as positive forcing agents not cooling. It would really help if you told us where you got this strange idea. And now where is the evidence that any climate science thinks global warming is "caused by thermal conductivity"? This is a straw man. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:37 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I would agree with Stephen above. I do tend to quote text but I try to keep it short. Sometimes I quote papers or abstracts, which I think should be tolerated, so long as there is a link that the reader can follow to get some context for the quote. Many readers will not necessarily peruse a long thread, let alone click on links provided along the way. I think the mods are doing a great job and I kinda like the snipping, especially as it is always accompanied by the justification for the snip. Anyone who has read the comment policy and sees why part of a comment is snipped will quickly gain a precise idea of how the discussion should be conducted. It should be emphasized that the comment policy and its application, together with the patience od moderators, have to date produced a discussion of excellent quality. In fact, some of the contributions of skeptics who have made efforts to comply and participate here over time are possibly the only meaningful ones I have seen anywhere on the web or in the press. I'm tempted to say you shouldn't change a formula that works. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:20 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
James Wilson, you are giving multiple indications that your condescending tone is unwarranted. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:10 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
33, JamesWilson, A few things. First... sulfates. They both absorb in the IR (a GHG property) and reflect visible light (a cooling property). The latter outweighs the former, by far, especially if the aerosols exist primarily near the equator where reflection (increased albedo) is key. IPCC on Sulfate Aerosols Specifically:The optical parameters of sulphate aerosol have been well documented (see Penner et al., 2001 and references therein). Sulphate is essentially an entirely scattering aerosol across the solar spectrum (ωo = 1) but with a small degree of absorption in the near-infrared spectrum. Theoretical and experimental data are available on the relative humidity dependence of the specific extinction coefficient, fRH (e.g., Tang et al., 1995).
Second... when you make a statement like "As of 2007 the IPCC was using CFCs as a cooling factor to generate their graphs" please support that with a link. It is the sort of statement which leads to the confusion we are currently trying to untangle. Where have you read this? This is what I asked before, as did several others. What is your source of this assertion? Please provide it. Without the source, we cannot figure out what you misunderstand (such as your misunderstanding about sulfates above). -
Stephen Baines at 11:07 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I think the comments policy is fine, even though I sometimes get sucker punched by responding to posts that get eventually deemed in conflict of it. I just don't see a way around that if you want to keep the site effective, and different in a good way from it's "peers." In fact, I would tend to be more aggressive. When people make points that have been covered in main posts, I would simply direct them to those posts and prevent them posting unless they had some question that actually hadn't been addressed. It may be worth while having some threads or posts preserved as examples of what fails the various tests of the comments policy. I am in favor of snipping as well -- although I imagine that takes a lot of work. As for quoting text, I think it's important at times, but I try to hard to limit the amount of text quoted. Seems to me the moderators understand the proper role of quotation in a thread. -
Robert Murphy at 11:01 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
#33 James Wilson: "As of 2007 the IPCC was using CFCs as a cooling factor to generate their graphs. This is *not* requiring of links because it is discussed on this site..." From AR4: "The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer regulates many radiatively powerful greenhouse gases for the primary purpose of lowering stratospheric chlorine and bromine concentrations. These gases include the CFCs, HCFCs, chlorocarbons, bromocarbons and halons." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3-4.html "Oh and here is the IPCC talking about Sulfate as a greenhouse gas. (ie warming" from the link: "In transient simulations to 2050, the inclusion of aerosols based on IS92a (y,z) reduces the global mean radiative forcing..." Their main net contribution is cooling, and this is well known by the IPCC. -
JamesWilson at 10:36 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
scaddenp congrats on the best response. Here is the scientific answer. Here is the basic physics of Global Warming. Global Warming is created by IR absorption and then thermal radiation of gasses. CO2, CFCs, SO2, etc. The energy comes into the earth as primarily visible light and radiates out as IR. Any gas that absorbs IR and reradiates it acts as a thermal blanket on the earth. More IR scatter equates more temperature sent back to the surface. This is the standard physics gas spectrometry is based on. Any gas that absorbs IR and radiates it back is a GHG. GHG ratings by the IPCC are defined by how many frequencies of IR a gas absorbs. CFCs absorb a lot of IR because they have a lot of molecular connections. Sulfate absorbs IR. See link below. Please read this on thermal absorption or google something http://www.habmigern2003.info/future_trends/infrared_analyser/ndir/IR-Absorption-GB.html Please read this on thermal radiation or google something http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation As of 2007 the IPCC was using CFCs as a cooling factor to generate their graphs. This is *not* requiring of links because it is discussed on this site... It is also highly unlikely to be correct: see above for how Global Warming works. The article you quote scaddenp quotes the same theory for IR absorption as a reflection. If you look at this article on IR absorption you will see that sulfate absorbs in the IR spectrum. Thus it cannot cool it heats. This is the first response from google check a few others if you want. http://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/VirtTxtJml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm Oh and here is the IPCC talking about Sulfate as a greenhouse gas. (ie warming) http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/310.htm For those who think Global Warming is caused by thermal conductivity. Ask yourself this. How many molecules are there in a vacuum (space). Or look up how a vacuum flask works (commonly known as a Thermos). The earth is a really good vacuum flask without the silver lining. -
Fran Barlow2 at 09:56 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I'd like anyone posting climate denial dissembling without citation (eg stuff from the top ten or in Climate Crocks) a) not to get the stuff published b) to have a note placed explaining that they had to address directly the debunking material in detail if they wished to be published at all Mods to err on the side of deleting when stuff is in the 'grey area' or OTT (with an explanation). Let's keep this excellent site free of trollish posting. -
skywatcher at 09:52 AM on 10 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
#147: you think that a global temperature change of a scale that will give us a glacial-interglacial transition in short order is a "minimal" change. Wow. Based on... looking out of your window? Eyeballing a graph and thinking that the numbers look kinda small? What is the context of the numbers? You have a lot of reading to do, and clearly a fair way to go before you comprehend the observed reality of the enhanced greenhouse effect and just how significant and rapid out current global warming is (much faster than the PETM). Start with the links above - and especially this Richard Alley AGU presentation -
calyptorhynchus at 09:46 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Re: litany which dictionary? I haven't seen one where the wrong meaning has been adopted for this word. Does it also have the wrong meanings for: belabo(u)r, careen, disinterested, enormity &c?Response:[dana1981] Any dictionary. See definition #4 here or #2c here, for example. It's very common usage to describe a long list of something as a litany.
-
MarkR at 09:36 AM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
I guess I was aiming more at the definition '2. a person who is easily alarmed'. Some believe that there is a serious chance of a methane 'gun' like event happening and have raised the alarm. We'd better hope they're wrong. 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. -
mikeh1 at 09:27 AM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
Alarmists? Is that a scientific term? Weird language coming from a SKS author particularly given the loading put on it by climate change deniers. -
Albatross at 09:23 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
I love the strawman constructed by Pat Michaels in his Forbes article. Nowhere in the IPCC assessment reports do they speak of “apocalyptic global warming”– so his point is a complete strawman and red herring. He falsely claims: “In other words, the UN’s average forecast of 3.2°C of warming this century is off by about 40%, which should spell the victory of the lukewarmers and the death-knell of apocalyptic global warming. Indeed, it is not the heat, it’s the sensitivity, which looks to be quite a bit lower than what’s in those computer simulations.” I discussed the issue with this misleading statement in my previous post. But there is an equally important issue that Michaels would have readers of his article ignore. Like other “skeptics” Michaels likes to try and claim that models are the only way of estimating climate sensitivity. They are not, and he knows that. Matt Huber’s (Purdue University) excellent quote below calls BS on Pats’ above assertion. The sage words of the respected Dr. Matt Huber are well worth reading: “Climate scientists don’t often talk about such grim long-term forecasts, Huber says, in part because skeptics, exaggerating scientific uncertainties, are always accusing them of alarmism. “We've basically been trying to edit ourselves”, Huber says. “Whenever we we see something really bad, we tend to hold off. The middle ground is actually worse than people think. “If we continue down this road, there are really is no uncertainty. We’re headed for the Eocence. And we know what that’s like.” Dr. Matt Huber, October 2011. Also, like Mr. Taylor, Pat is happy to let readers remain blissfully unaware of the problems with the satellite record (especially the UAH product) and that other groups processing the satellite data arrive at higher rates of warming (close to 0.20 C per decade for the satellite era) in the lower troposphere. Pat also wants readers to remain ignorant of the fact that the weather balloon data also shows a rate of warming for the middle atmosphere (about 1.5 km to 10 km above sea level) satellite era of near of ~0.18-0.20 C per decade.Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed close italics. -
Albatross at 09:14 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
Pat Michaels engages in some very disingenuous cherry picking and lying by omission in his Forbes article. Sometimes I wonder if people like Taylor and Michaels have an honest bone in their bodies…. One especially good example of this is his very confident claim that: "The average warming trend in the one-third century of satellite data is 0.14°C per decade, but the warming rate in the UN’s midrange climate models is 0.25°." Ironically, the warming rate of 0.25 C/decade is from Santer et al. (2011), a paper that includes amongst it conclusions that: "There is no timescale on which observed trends are statistically unusual (at the 5% level or better) relative to the multi-model sampling distribution of forced TLT trends. We conclude from this result that there is no inconsistency between observed near-global TLT trends (in the 10- to 32-year range examined here) and model estimates of the response to anthropogenic forcing." So Pat is using data from a paper that finds no statistically unusual in the trends between the rate of warming predicted by the models and found satellite estimates to try and demonstrate that the models are wrong and that there is no concern for doubling or trebling CO2. Similarly to Santer et al. (2011), Thorne et al. (2010) find that: "It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively." Now it is true that the models are running slightly too warm, at least when compared against the satellite estimates, but the satellite data are far from the gold standard and still have unresolved issues. Not for one minute does Michaels share with readers the possibility that the satellites have unresolved cool biases as noted by Mears et al. (2011): "This further confirms our finding for our data set that unambiguously resolving the diurnal drift effect correction and its impacts is likely to be a key determinant in reducing the uncertainty in long term tropospheric temperature changes from MSU/AMSU records." Michaels then goes on to make his uber confident statement of fact: "....the UN’s average forecast of 3.2°C of warming this century is off by about 40%, which should spell the victory of the lukewarmers and the death-knell of apocalyptic global warming." Note how definitive his language is, completely void of any qualifiers or mention of uncertainty. He says "is off by 40%" (not "perhaps", "could be", "may be"). This brazen overconfidence in "skeptics" assertions while calling into doubt the findings of real climate scientists is a consistent theme in this misinformation campaign being waged by people like Michaels and Taylor. Additionally, Michaels chooses not to share with readers that part of the outstanding discrepancy between the model estimates and satellite estimates could be attributable to the fact that the any of the model runs have not included some negative forcings (e.g., increased aerosol loading, the recent prolong solar minimum). Instead, Michaels is trying to have people believe that the sole reason for the discrepancies is attributable to "model response errors" and for that reasons there is no cause for concern should we double or treble CO2. Wrong, and I suspect deep down he knows it. -
MarkR at 09:04 AM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
It was lucky timing with the RC thing! They are commenting on the probability of a 'disastrous' outcome. What I reported here doesn't contradict what RC are saying: it will add to warming, but current estimates are that it will seriously boost warming, but not by as much as the alarmists might claim. Of course, the alarmists could be right, we seem to be heading into uncharted territory with regards to polar warming. Let's hope they're wrong though! -
Bob Loblaw at 09:01 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
We'll have to await an explanation from James (I won't hold my breath), but when I first read his comment about CFCs and cooling, I immediately thought "here is someone confusing the role of CFCs in ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling due to decreased UV absoprtion with CFCs as a greenhouse gas". ...so many possible misinterpretations to choose from... -
DrTsk at 08:34 AM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
Worst case scenario equivalent to 750 - 850 CO2 ppm concentration, without counting the extra CO2 under a BAU (bussiness as usuall) scenario. I would not consider this "not as bad". -
scaddenp at 07:10 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Actually I had a revelation walking to work... James, I assume that you have read somewhere about controversies over whether aerosol forcing is being underestimated (eg Hansen 2011) and you have understood aerosols (light-scattering particles - think Asian Brown Cloud) with CFCs (actually potent greenhouse gases). If you are actually interested in what the science is about, (which is neither "funny" nor comforting), then try looking at the SkepticalScience article here. And please take some time to understand the basics before wading in with something from obviously borrowed from a site run by either the clueless and/or mendacious. Skeptical Science is a great place to learn those. -
StarvingStudent at 07:01 AM on 10 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Thank you so much John Cook and others who have worked on this. I really appreciate the fact that you have waded through all the B.S. and put together these awards and the entire site. As an Environmental Science student I am trying to find facts to battle the ignorant masses with and this website is just what I need! -
Bob Lacatena at 06:52 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
25, JamesWilson, [I hate to pile on, but...] 1. Please provide citations to support your numerous outlandish assertions. Making stuff up (or arguing based on something you seem to recall having read somewhere on the Intertubes) is not science. 2. Are you really trying to pit what amounts to the magical, inexplicable theory of a supposed new Maunder Minimum against a theory that is well founded in current theory of physics and chemistry and is also well supported by all observations? -
Albatross at 06:47 AM on 10 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
There are so many candidates, so I understand that they could not all be included. however, the ongoing plagiarism Wegman scandal should have been in there IMHO. From Deltoid. "The Wegman scandal has made The Scientist's list of the top 5 science scandals of 2011: A controversial climate change paper was retracted when it was found to contain passages lifted from other sources, including Wikipedia. The paper, published by climate change skeptic Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis in 2008, showed that climatology is an inbred field where most researchers collaborate with and review each other’s work. But a resourceful blogger uncovered evidence of plagiarism, and the journal retracted the paper, which was cited 8 times, in May." For those of you unfamiliar of Wegman, he is apparently a serial plagiarist and author of the infamous (and plagiarized) Wegman report (see also here) that that deniers of AGW and 'skeptics' like to claim demonstrate that the hockey stick is "broken". George Mason University has been investigating other charges of plagiarism made against Wegman for over 20 months now with still no resolution in sight. You can imagine the howls of indignation had it taken officials that long to wrap up investigations in the the stolen CRU emails. And who is Wegman also very close to? The contrarian, professional slanderer of climate scientists and cherry picker Steve McIntyre. -
Albatross at 06:28 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
DeWitt Payne @8, Good points, but I do not agree with this "the GCM's do not model the actual surface boundary layer". The models do simulate temperatures in the low levels of the atmosphere, including in the boundary layer. The number of data levels in the vertical and their spacing are much coarser than in numerical prediction models though. The highest density of layers is in the low levels with the spacing between data levels increasing with height. With that said, and as you correctly note, it is incorrect to compare near surface temperatures (screen level near 1.2 m above ground level) with the temperatures in a deep layer in the lower troposphere. -
scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
" had to include CFCs as a cooling agent" - Huh? Can you please support this assertion. It appears your skepticism is based on believing many things that are not true. -
Albatross at 06:19 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
This diatribe is almost as bad as Taylor’s abysmal effort titled “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism”. This is the second misleading press release that Spencer and Christy and University Alabama in Huntsville have been implicated in in recent months. Mr. Taylor should really stick to being a lawyer. It is clear that Spencer and Christy have a close partnership with the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute. Together they make quite a misinformation/propaganda machine. Spencer and Christy release a misleading press release, them paid misinformers from Heartland/Cato propagate that and add further distortions and misleading information in the mass media. Spencer and Christy stand by silently and let the errors and distortions made by their friends at Heartland go uncorrected. The spate of appalling misinformation articles by "skeptics" and deniers of AGW that Forbes has allowed to be published in recent months underscores the very serious issue that the media have with false balance, and shows how the media are intimately involved in propagating myths and misinformation and even falsehoods about AGW. To say the media have largely let the people down is a gross understatement. As someone noted in the thread following the Michaels misinformation piece: "You devalue your publication by publishing easily debunked climate myths written by a oil industry shill." Exactly. -
wandreef at 06:14 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
The current policy looks good to me. Although, If it were my site I’d mention copyright and personal privacy laws in some degree as it pertains to the site. It covers your butt! -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:10 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
James... Can you provide some sources of the information you're presenting so we can see what you're trying to claim? For one, I can't seem to find any temperature decrease since 2000 in any of the data sets. [link] HadCRU comes out flat but that's the closest, and none of these trends are anywhere close to statistically significant. -
Sapient Fridge at 05:57 AM on 10 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 2)
Regarding the "Methane on the move?" section RealClimate are saying that the problem may not be as bad as it seems. See here and here. -
muoncounter at 05:45 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
JamesWilson#25: There is no temperature decrease since 2000. 2000-2009 was the warmest decade; 2010 and 2011 were not exactly cool. The radiative forcing due to current concentrations of CFCs is minimal compared to that of GHGs. -
DSL at 05:20 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Uhhh, James . . . what do you mean when you use "AGW" as a subject for the verb "has had"? Could you be more precise and give a few references/links? And who are "you guys"? The devil is indeed in the assumptions, and you've made quite a few. -
TOP at 05:18 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
@1 ChrisG This is a blog format site. However, many discussions fork off in multiple directions and this is why people feel the need to quote parts of previous comments. This response is an example just because I have to insert @1 ChrisG and hope the reader actually refers to that comment. When a forum crosses many time zones and a dialog ensues it is a major pain to have to jump back and forth to catch up when there is more than one screen of comments. All that to say, the policy is OK, but the format should be changed to deal with the all too prevalent forking of discussion threads. Comment Policy by software. This is gone on Google Groups and the user has the choice of inline or forked. -
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
perseus - I think it's to prevent wholesale incorporation of pages of text from other sources, or simply repeating large previous comments, which is fairly common practice on some blogs. It's quite reasonable to include a line or two for context, though. -
DeWitt Payne at 05:14 AM on 10 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
"The Mid Troposphere series is biased low because around 20% of its signal actually originates from the Stratosphere." That would be true if just the raw signal were used to compute the temperature. That isn't the case though. Both RSS and UAH attempt to remove the influence of the signal from the stratosphere by different algorithms. Unfortunately, until both share their code, we don't have any independent confirmation of how successful they are. RSS was running about 0.1 C higher than UAH for global middle troposphere temperature anomaly until the demise of the Aqua satellite sensor. Now UAH is ~0.1 C higher than RSS. It will be interesting to see how Version 6 of the UAH code changes things. The other thing is that the surface temperature is just that and is inside the surface boundary layer. As I remember, the GCM's do not model the actual surface boundary layer so comparing satellite temperatures to models to GISS or HADCRUT is something of an apples to oranges to bananas comparison. -
Paul D at 05:09 AM on 10 January 20122011 Expected to be Second Warmest Year on Record for the UK
Daffodils and snowdrops early: http://www.woodlandtrust.presscentre.com/News-Releases/Will-spring-be-sprung-early-in-2012-9d6.aspx The Woodland Trust are looking at climate change and connections with early appearances of native flora. -
perseus at 04:45 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
What is the purpose of this from the comments policy? It can make the thread rather difficult to read without quotes. Sorry if it is a quote itself!! No copying and pasting from other comments. If you wish to refer to earlier comments, you can hyperlink directly to them. To make this easier, note that with each comment, the date/time is a hyperlink. If you link to this URL, clicking on the link will take you directly to that part of the page. http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml -
JamesWilson at 04:36 AM on 10 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
I find this kind of funny. Consider this: AGW has had to include CFCs as a cooling agent in order to explain the temperature decrease since 2000. If we are headed to a mini ice age it supports the theory of man made Global Warming without the use of CFCs on the mapping. Because CFCs are listed as a Global Warming chemical with 20 times the effectiveness of CO2 they are problematic as a cooling element. So essentially you guys are writing off something that supports Global Warming theory more plausibly than CFCs... Who knows how long a Maunder Minimum is going to last which effectively means a Maunder Minimum could mean current Global Warming graphs estimates are low. Of course it also means the "Science isn't Solved" which may be why you are so quick to write it off. That of course assumes a great deal of other things which I won't get into here. The devil is always in the assumptions right? -
Michael Whittemore at 04:32 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
@ Eric. I tend to agree, after reading a good amount of comments over the last hour or two, the moderators are doing a fantastic job. -
Phil at 04:10 AM on 10 January 20122011 Expected to be Second Warmest Year on Record for the UK
One thing that is definitely relevant in this post is the observation that 2010, which was one of the warmest years globally, was one of the coolest in the UK. That should given any reasonable person (whereever they are) pause for thought before they pop their head out the window in order to pronounce on the global climate. You're a bunch of (bi)cycling whimps - I commute-cycle whatever the weather - admittedly this year in East Anglia has been mild - but I did it last year too ! -
Tom Smerling at 04:05 AM on 10 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
nice catch on this 'toon! :) -
CBDunkerson at 03:51 AM on 10 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
Hmmm, somehow I missed the 'Fall snow cover' graph in the top article until now. It is interesting that this shows a slightly increasing trend. This would seem to support ideas about increased atmospheric water vapor content and airflow leading to more snowfall. There have been some 'freak' early snow storms in the past few years which may not be all that unusual in the future. If a stronger hydrological cycle means Arctic air gets pulled down to mid-latitudes and mixes with warmer, water-laden, air more often then we may be seeing alot more Fall snow storms. The basically flat Winter results are also interesting. More snow in the Fall should lead to more snow cover in Winter... that it hasn't suggests that we are seeing more Winter snow melt than we used to. The declining trends in Spring and Summer are consistent with increased melt from the rising temperatures. -
dana1981 at 03:15 AM on 10 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
A good place to discuss whether the observed warming has been 'minimal' or 'rapid', for example, would be A Big Picture Look at Global Warming, where we examined a subjective, unsupported claim by a certain blogger, very similar to Carbon500's assertions.
Prev 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 Next
