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:
-
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.
-
bulla at 00:51 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
your usupition of my comments being of low quality that dosent leave much room for you, given the world wide understanding of your fraternaty which is at a bottom low of crdability, below on the ratings world wide of used car salesmenModerator Response: [muoncounter] Repetition of nonsensical claims does nothing for your credibility. Nor does continual misspelling. Enough. -
Tom Curtis at 00:50 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
bulla @24, a google scholar search for "atomics" turns up the term as a part of trade names only, so yes, atomics is not a science (nor an English word). -
muoncounter at 00:46 AM on 9 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan#474: 'Ensemble mean' is not a prediction; a difference between actual and mean does not imply systemic error. -
Tom Curtis at 00:46 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Shoyemore @20, it is certainly possible to show that CO2 forcing and temperature rise have been co-integrated over the last 40 years, and more accurately that GHG forcing plus anthropogenic aerosol forcing and temperature rise have been co-integrated over the course of the 20th century. I refer you again to the discussion of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) where I believe this discussion would more properly belong. (It is not off topic here per se, but a more detailed mathematical discussion is more appropriate in a thread discussing a detailed mathematical treatment.) With regard to your attempted link @14, I believe there was a problem with your html code. Your @15 and my @16 where cross posted. -
Tom Curtis at 00:33 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
I should note that bulla's post of 9 Jan, 00:27 AM is the 28th post of similar low quality, all in violation of the comments policy that the moderators have had the displeasure of having to deal with. I personally want to thank them for their sterling efforts in keeping the threads from becoming clogged with this utter tripe, thereby allowing coherent discussion to flourish. -
Tom Curtis at 00:28 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
Moderators, can I request that Bulla @21 be allowed to stand so that casual readers can see just the sort of ridiculous, slanderous drivel that Bulla vomits forth, and understand full well why it is in complete violation of the comment policy, and justifiably removed. -
bulla at 00:25 AM on 9 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
your fraternaty has been show over and over again to be so wrotten to it very core of its existance and that even your own peare review has said that 85% of papers submitted are Ither lyes or plagerized or just plain faulserfied -
shoyemore at 00:15 AM on 9 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
skywatcher #17, I accept completely the consequences of this elegant animation. I was just point out possible variations of the scenario, which make it more interesting. Tom Curtis #16, I know the subtraction of the paths in the case of cointegration would not be a random walk. That is exactly the point I am making. Is it possible to show that CO2 and temperature rise are cointegrated? PS I gave the link in #15. The problem is the link itself, not me.:) Obviously, I did not make myself clear initially. -
Tom Curtis at 00:02 AM on 9 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
Carbon500 @140 refers to this graph:
As noted by Rob Painting @141 notes, the record shows rising tropospheric and surface temperatures, and declining stratospheric temperatures as is predicted by the models for an increased greenhouse forcing. The rate of rise of temperature at the surface is consistent with that predicted by the models, which same models predict large, and potentially disastrous rises in temperature in the 21st Century with ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases. So, having conveniently referred us to solid evidence ongoing, and dangerous global warming, Carbon500 presents us with the full body of "skeptic" counter evidence:
"I don't think so."
I must admit, I had never considered the full weight of that evidence before. I will alert the IPCC of this astonishing evidence so that it can be included in the AR5 - anonymous internet guy doesn't think so. With evidence that incontrovertible, it is no wonder "skeptics" have not been convinced by actual physical evidence for the case for global warming. -
Rob Painting at 23:44 PM on 8 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
So the lower atmosphere and surface temperature are increasing, and the lower stratosphere temperature is decreasing. That's what one would expect with an enhanced (increased) Greenhouse Effect. You have a problem with that? Or is yours one of linear extrapolation? Hopefully I'm not responding to another Doug Cotton sockpuppet. -
Tristan at 22:24 PM on 8 January 2012Models are unreliable
Thanks for the responses. If it turns out that the 2011-2030 temperatures are markedly lower than the ensemble mean predicted, this suggests a systemic error in the way temperature was being forecasted in '07. I will be interested to see how the AR5's predictions compare to AR4's. Undoubtedly another 5 years of science and temperatures would have shed even more light on the nature of the climate's response to emissions. -
Carbon500 at 22:16 PM on 8 January 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
The IPCC state in 'Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis'(p21) that there is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system. They say 'Key uncertainties include aspects of the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere, the oceans, land use and couplings between climate and geochemical cycles.' Since 1958, CO2 has increased by 75 molecules per million of dry air. Now take a look at P38 of 'Climate Change 2007'. Four graphs show surface, trophospheric and stratospheric observed air temperatures since measuring began at Mauna Loa. Portends of CO2 induced doom? I don't think so. -
boba10960 at 22:07 PM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
I think the original source of the images in @3 is the Global Warming Art gallery of Robert A, Rohde, as noted by Rob H @8. The gallery contains a number of images that serve as a useful resource. As noted by Tom Curtis @9, the first image in @3 emphasizes an important point, namely, that no single record (e.g., GISP-II ice core) provides an accurate representation of global temperature. Note in particular the wide range of temperatures in the early Holocene among records from different regions. Just because Greenland experienced rapid warming in the past, or the fact that Greenland experienced temperatures in the early Holocene that exceeded temperatures that occur there today, cannot be used as evidence that the entire Earth experienced such rapid warming or warm temperatures. Excellent video by Teddy TV. -
bulla at 21:40 PM on 8 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
I thought I made it very clear that climate ghange is indeed very realModerator Response: [Rob P] - Please note the comments policy. If you wish to discuss something firmly grounded in climate science, then good. Pseudo-scientific bafflegab is not science. -
Tom Curtis at 19:51 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Sapient Fridge @35, all four BEST papers were submitted to a peer review with the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmosphere" in October, 2011. That means they are currently undergoing review, but have not yet been published in their final reviewed form. That can take a year or more, but I suspect it will be much quicker in this case. Somebody who has published with JGR-A may be able to give you a better idea of the likely time from submission to publication. -
Sapient Fridge at 19:31 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Does anyone know if the BEST paper is going to be peer reviewed? I've seen lots of comments saying it isn't peer reviewed but it's not clear if that's a temporary status. -
Tom Curtis at 18:35 PM on 8 January 2012Ocean Acidification: Corrosive waters arrive in the Bering Sea
bulla @19, you cannot be sent any more emails requesting your comments as you were never sent any emails requesting your comments to be begin with. I must say I am growing tired of this childish game by deniers in which they turn up, post obviously off topic comments in the expectation of being moderated for violation of the comments policy, and then lie about what happened to them. In Bulla's case they have gone one further by posting entirely nonsensical comments. The requirements for posting here are simple. In essence they come down to two requirements - by relevant and be polite. Apparently that is too onerous a task for deniers who would rather rely on irrationalism, and abuse. -
JoeTheScientist at 13:05 PM on 8 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Fast breeders are more expensive to utility companies, not "economically non-feasible". Their costs do not reflect the costs of disposing of massive amounts of waste, which are picked up by taxpayers (and would be 100x lower with fast-breeder tech). I like thorium molten-salt technology, which was piloted and then dropped (although I hear China is pursuing development). It can't melt down (fuel cools & solidifies over the weekend), and it can't be used to make bombs, and generates much less high-level waste, plus thorium reserves are greater than U235 and U238. However, it needs more development. But this is off topic. On-topic: So THAT'S why I'm hearing "cold predictions" popping up - the bogus "it's sunspots" claim! -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:57 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
What you have to realize is that Watts is he can't accept the BEST findings. Regardless of what he said he'd accept he really can't accept the BEST findings because his entire "business" is based on not accepting them. Think about it. What would happen to his website and his following if he up and said, "Dang, it seems I really have been wrong all along." He doesn't have a business. He's hitting the streets looking for new employment. I think he made that statement because he was arrogant and deluded enough to believe that the results would turn out his way. -
Tom Curtis at 12:40 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
RyanStarr @31: 1) Anthony Watts problem with release before peer review consists entirely in the fact that he did not like the results. We know this because he has very happily trumpeted results from other papers which have been released without peer review without complaint, so long as they give a message he likes. Indeed, he regularly posts "scientific" articles on his blog which have not, and will not even be submitted for peer review on his blog. If he truly believed in the value of peer review, where those articles disagreed with peer reviewed science (as they nearly always do), he would insist that they be submitted for, and pass peer review before he published. 2) His objection to the 60 year time period is also almost certainly spurious. BEST have released all their data, and Anthony certainly has all the surface station data, as he collated it. It follows that he could easily either repeat the BEST analysis over 30 yrs himself, or persuade somebody with sufficient mathematical skill (such as Jeff ID) to do so, thereby establishing the basis of his objection. That he has not done so is a tacit admission that the 60 year time period does not significantly effect the results. It follows that he has merely seized on that as an excuse to ignore results he does not like. -
muoncounter at 12:33 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
RyanStarr#31: A bogus criticism at best. What peer-reviewed evidence do you and/or Watt$ present for BEST not 'doing science by the regular process' (whatever that even means)? And under what bizarre set of rules is the use of a 60 year period 'a basic failure'? That would seem to be the case only among those who raise cherry-picking to a fine art. No, what neither Watt$ nor you (apparently) accept is that BEST has made his petty objections of station siting and urban heating moot. Even a reputable science blog would have accepted that he was wrong and moved on. But when you don't get the answer you want, criticize the methodology and/or the people who did the study. What makes this award-winning behavior is that it is pure unvarnished hypocrisy. -
RyanStarr at 12:12 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
The claim that Mr Watts "thought [BEST] would prove his anti-warming beliefs" is pure speculation. Anthony provides grounds for his concerns and acknowledges his stance is at odds with his previous statement, "I would accept their findings whatever they were, but that was when I expected them to do science per the scientific process." "When BEST approached me, I was told they were doing science by the regular process, and that would include peer review. Now it appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR." And more specifically in relation to BESTs 60 year time period, "I see this as a basic failure in understanding the limitations of the siting survey we conducted on the USHCN, rendering the Muller et al paper conclusions highly uncertain, if not erroneous." He adds he would accept the result (one result?) if they used a 30 year period. -
Jose_X at 10:30 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
When new trends appear to be establishing themselves, we should ask ourselves why? Can we explain it with past effects and cycles? Has a new driver/variable recently been thrown into the mix that appears to explain the new trend? Mainstream CO2 warming theory fits well into what would otherwise be more puzzling. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:16 AM on 8 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
A new acronym is emerging: fossil fuel-funded think tank = ffftt. It is pure coincidence that ffftt is the sound of methane or CO2 escaping from confinement ... -
skywatcher at 10:08 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Shoeymore @14 tries desperately to avoid the consequences of accepting this simple and elegant animation... -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:55 AM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
"How does one then conclude that Anthony thought BEST would prove his anti-warming beliefs?" Quite easily. One only has to look at his words and actions after the BEST results were published. They say everything one needs to know on what his expectations, or hopes, truly were before publication. -
DrTsk at 07:04 AM on 8 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
They are rather strong contenders! -
John Hartz at 05:55 AM on 8 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Suggested reading “As wild weather hits Latin America, experts look to both La Nina and climate change”, Washington Post/AP, Jan 6, 2012 To access this article, click here. -
pbjamm at 02:50 AM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
He made a bet, lost the bet, then claimed he was cheated and welched on it. It appears to me that he thought the bet to be a sure thing. -
CBDunkerson at 02:42 AM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
RyanStarr wrote: "How does one then conclude that Anthony thought BEST would prove his anti-warming beliefs?" You remember the part where he also said that he would accept whatever result they came up with, right? And then... didn't? See, some of us take things like that to indicate that not everything Anthony Watts says is true. I know... it's a head spinner, but just roll with it for a minute. If we look at this silly thing called 'observed reality' instead of just accepting everything he says we find that he frequently says things which conflict with reality... and even with other things he has said. Observed reality, on the other hand, tends to be fairly consistent with itself. So, citing Anthony Watts as saying something doesn't really make quite as a compelling case for it being true as you seem to think... especially as it was part of a statement where he first said he would do one thing... and then later did the opposite. -
RyanStarr at 02:21 AM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Above says Anthony Watts "thought [BEST] would prove his anti-warming beliefs to be right because it was being done by someone he thought was in his camp". The following quote comes from the same piece where the attached quote ("I'm prepared to accept...") is sourced: "But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing." Those are the words from the horses mouth, so to speak. How does one then conclude that Anthony thought BEST would prove his anti-warming beliefs? -
Tom Curtis at 01:25 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Shoyermore @14, making a line red in colour does not make it a link. As for the possibility that the owner is drunk, we can subtract from the dogs path the effects of likely distractions. If the owner is drunk as well, the result will still be a random walk. As it happens, it isn't:
-
shoyemore at 01:18 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Link in last post does not work. Try this in your browser http://www.jstor.org/pss/2685084 Or Google cointegration drunk woman dog -
shoyemore at 01:15 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
It is interesting to think through what happens (1) when the leash is removed. The dog's path becomes a random walk with a trend (the owner's path). (2) the leash is removed, and the owner is now very drunk and in the dark. Now the man's walk is a trendless random walk, but the dog is still "orbiting" him. Or maybe the man is following the dog, the one who knows better how to get home. Or maybe they are influencing each other, while going home very haphazardly? In this case how can you tell the two walks are correlated? This might be important to test for correlation of temperature and CO2 levels, where both have lots of variability. Apparently, you look for a "leash" an error correction mechanism between man and dog by subtracting their paths and seeing if it is non-random. If the man calls the dog, it will change direction. If the man hears the dog barking, he will head in its direction. Such stationary linear combinations of non-stationary random variables is called "cointegration". Here is an amuusing introduction: A Drunk and her Dog I wondered if the technique could be used to check correlation of CO2 and temperature. A standard denialist trope is that correlation between their rise is only coincidence. -
Paul D at 20:42 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Love the video! -
John Brookes at 19:11 PM on 7 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Well done for giving Murdoch second place. Believe it or not, many "skeptics" are not happy with the media, thinking that they follow the party line too much, and don't give enough space to their loony views. -
Bert from Eltham at 16:57 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Apart from now defining grey body emitters as the new black and autocorrelation as a trick that drives the trend the denialists are grasping at fictional straws. They then claim that the average temperature of our planet has no meaning? By what measure should we judge? Bert -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:36 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Another excellent resource for me to link to when I am on a debunking mission at other blogs! Shooting down contrarians like pirate, using sober logic instead of their type of religious dogma, is getting to be like shooting fish in a barrel: there is nowhere for them to hide from the light of reason. Keep up the good work. -
Stephen Baines at 15:15 PM on 7 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
mc, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying there was "equilibrium" with respect to the tone of debate or the methods being employed. I was referring to the equilibrium in my own soul that depends on a vague persistent hope for some real dialogue across these boundaries, in spite of the craziness that is going on. -
DeWitt Payne at 14:38 PM on 7 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Mond from Oz, You do realize that the largest company in the oil industry isn't privately owned. It's Saudi Aramco. The estimated worth at $781bn is over half again as large as Exxon Mobil at $454bn. In fact, nine of the top ten largest unlisted corporations are state owned oil companies which control the vast majority of proven reserves. -
muoncounter at 13:15 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
And of course pirate ignores the fact that since 8000 years BP, the mean temperature change was bounded by approximately 1 degree (-0.5 to 0.5C). We're now busting out of that range to potentially dire consequences. How anyone with any scientific inclination can look at that graphic and not be concerned is astonishing.
Prev 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 Next
