Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 Next
Comments 67201 to 67250:
-
owl905 at 16:20 PM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
@Phila - in some disciplines, notably medical research, retractions are not uncommon at all. Retraction Watch is dedicated to the theme. Nature has not only engaged in retractions, but noted the increase and dedicated an article to the theme: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a/box/2.html The ironic part about the attention drawn to the area of climate science is that the most notorious retractions are the Remote Sensing scam of 2011, and the Soon/Baliunis rewrap of 'The Petition' document: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/resignations-retractions-and-the-process-of-science -
citizenschallenge at 16:12 PM on 6 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
I fully agree with Rob Honeycutt: “Not only is this an excellently produced video but it is a wonderful and balanced encapsulation of the reality of the climate situation and public debate.” I myself was so impressed with what Dr. Schneider said that I’ve decide to transcribe the audio of this video (including time signatures). I do this for my own edification since the process allows me to truly digest the message and I'm posting it because I hope it might be of use to some others. http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/01/stephen-schneider-unauthorized.html -
Phila at 15:35 PM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
Also, I'm sure I've said this before, but people who make unsubstantiated claims about things like "the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them" really shouldn't be allowed to post any further comments until they support their accusations with hard evidence. If they can't do that, they really shouldn't be allowed to post further comments until they acknowledge being mistaken. If they won't do that, they really shouldn't be allowed to post any further comments, period. I know moderators have their hands full, but this situation where people like James Wilson can indulge in this kind of basically irresponsible behavior, ignore corrections and then move blithely on to the next bit of misinformation is intolerable and really needs to stop. This behavior's at least as socially disruptive as name-calling or political ranting, and far more destructive to the actual purpose of this site. That's what I think, anyway. -
Tristan at 15:28 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
(-Snip-) Do I need to state that I don't dispute any of the mechanics of climate change before people here actually read my posts properly? The AR4 is doing the forecasting. Not me. Based on the current rate of warming given by F&R2011 atmospheric temperatures will not reach the 2011-30 mean projected by the AR4. Either the warming must increase or the prediction must fall. My completely unscientific guess is that both of these will be the case. I presume that someone with a lot more knowledge than me can give me more information about this disparity. We are not on track for a mean 2011-30 anomaly of +0.64C versus 1980-99 without a very visible acceleration in warming.Response:[DB] Improper ideological categorizations snipped.
-
Phila at 15:22 PM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
James Wilson: Trying to calculate the number of joules retained by the earth is by definition an almost impossible job. The numerical methods to do it might be logically sound but if you understand the math behind it it is similar to multiplying both sides of the equation by zero. The nice things about mathematical arguments like this one is that they can be presented in mathematical terms and then checked for accuracy. In other words, please show your work. -
muoncounter at 15:05 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan#465: You're forecasting using the average rate rather than the current rate? Based on this average of all five adjusted data sets, the warming trend has not slowed significantly in recent years (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade from 2000 through 2010). Either way, what's your point? The thread here is model reliability, not model infallibility. Does pointing out a supposed flaw in an IPCC document somehow nullify AGW? -
Tristan at 14:48 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
Muon A) The average of the 5 records is .163C/decade, not 0.18C. B) 2030 may be +0.6C compared to 80-99. However, the 4AR states warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C. If the anomaly is currently +0.26 and it reaches +0.6 by 2030, the average will be a lot less than +0.64. -
ubrew12 at 14:27 PM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
CBDunkerson@#10 "being visible [i.e. white] is important for aircraft and birds to be able to avoid them" The evidence is that purple is the best color: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320763/Why-painting-wind-turbines-purple-protect-birds-bats.html and DrTsk@#11: "German windmills are sometimes painted dark green at the bottom to blend into the forest" I don't want aircraft to be endangered, but I think white windmills are as much an eyesore as white houses, and wonder if that particular part of their anatomy should be rethought. Thanks for your responses. I don't want to hog this thread with a triviality, however. -
CBDunkerson at 14:10 PM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Doug H wrote: "Can we hope that more evangelical arm-waving anti-science candidates founder quickly?" The press will continue pretending otherwise for a couple more months, but Mitt Romney has essentially wrapped up the GOP nomination at this point. While Santorum got nearly as many votes in the Iowa caucuses that was largely due to a 'last evangelical extremist standing' effect... all the other fervently anti-science candidates had already enjoyed their moment in the spotlight, and had some of their many many flaws exposed thereby. Santorum is getting his turn now, and frankly he's the worst of the lot. He'll be abandoned within a week or two. Perry is already looking for a graceful way to bow out and the other briefly popular candidates likely aren't far behind. As for Romney, he has sung the GOP denial line while chasing the nomination, but in the past he made reasonably sane statements about AGW. He might be a halfway decent president if the congress were controlled by the Democrats. The real danger zone is congress. If the GOP continues to accumulate power there, the U.S. won't do anything worthwhile about global warming (or various other important issues) for many years to come regardless of who wins the presidency. So yeah, the worst of the GOP anti-science brigade are going down... though largely due to other issues. Unsurprisingly, they're irrational and alarming on many other topics as well. -
muoncounter at 14:07 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan#461: Here is a map of GISS temperature anomaly for the year 2011, using 1980-1999 as a base period:
--source
You should note the average anomaly of 0.26C shown in the upper right corner. Using FR2011's linear trend of 0.18C per decade, by 2030 (two decades hence), we could easily see an anomaly (relative to 1980-99) in excess of 0.6C.
-
Tristan at 14:01 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
what is left to explain? The gap between 0.16 and 0.20. -
michael sweet at 13:55 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan, Thank you for the cite. Since it says "and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades." and the recent Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) paper claims the rate of warming is unchanging, what is left to explain? -
muoncounter at 13:55 PM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
More BS, this time from Newt Gingrich and his man-behind-the-curtain: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has canceled the climate change chapter in his upcoming book of environmental essays after Rush Limbaugh and other commentators targeted its author, atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe. Dr. Hayhoe is a Texas Tech University atmospheric scientist with impeccable science credentials and a Christian faith-based outlook on climate change issues. Apparently even she was too much of a radical. And then came the harassment: Following the December 8 L.A. Times article identifying Hayhoe as a contributor to Gingrich’s book, Marc Morano, former spokesman for Senator Inhofe, spent the past month attacking her on his blog, Climate Depot. Morano also encouraged his readers to contact Hayhoe directly by repeatedly posting her email address. Chris Horner’s American Tradition Institute also filed a request with Hayhoe’s employer, Texas Tech University, requesting any emails she sent or received about the book. -
Tristan at 13:41 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
I'd advise a little caution in making such strong statements, Michael. WG1 Ch10.ES Mean Temperature There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C). Thus, this warming rate is affected little by different scenario assumptions or different model sensitivities, and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades. -
Marcus at 13:39 PM on 6 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
@ Pluvial. *If* I was shown evidence that Fast Breeders could provide *safe*, almost zero-waste energy at low cost, then I might be prepared to accept it (contrary to popular belief, I'm not one of those dyed-in-the-wool anti-nuclear types). Yet all I see being built around the world are Generation III nuclear reactors-which are just your stock-standard light-water reactors. Now that suggests that the Fast-Breeders are either (a) technically or (b) economically non-feasible. Quite frankly, I see no point in going down the nuclear route-not when we've barely touched our vast solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro & biomass energy reserves-not to mention the biggest "energy source", "Negawatts" ;-). -
tmac57 at 13:19 PM on 6 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
Treehugger just did a piece on Republicans who are pushing for their party to recognize climate change,along with a video piece by Mother Jones: http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/endangered-gop-climate-hawks-captured-video.htmlBehold: I present to you irrefutable, 100% verified videographic evidence that Republicans who understand the threat posed by climate change – and want public policy to address it – do indeed exist.
-
michael sweet at 13:12 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan, I find it impossible to believe that the 4AR would make such a narrow projection. Can you provide a cite to the page where this projection was made? If you cannot provide a cite, please withdraw the question. The uncertainty in aerosol pollution alone is enough to account for the difference you note. -
Tristan at 13:00 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
DM F&R2011 removed a lot of that noise to reveal a fairly constant 0.16/decade trend. The 4AR predicts that 2011-30 will be +0.64-0.69C vs 1980-99. We won't get there at the current warming rate. Therefore either the warming rate must increase or the projections were too high. Which is it, do we know? RP I meant "There seems to be little indication of increased atmospheric warming." -
Doug Hutcheson at 12:32 PM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
The B.S.* Awards make a light relief from the serious business of studying and publicising AGW. As a non-scientist, I spend some of my time at Australian fora like ABC's The Drum and News Corp's The Punch, correcting AGW myths by posting rebuttals with links to SkS debunking articles. It is boring work and never-ending, but it is all a foot soldier like myself can do and it does give me the dubious pleasure of attracting hilarious incoming fire from the worst bigots. Good to see that Michele (CO2 is plant food) Bachmann has dropped out of the Republican race for the White House, although not for AGW-related reasons. Can we hope that more evangelical arm-waving anti-science candidates founder quickly? Any reason at all will do: I don't mind if the worst of the worst fail because of mundane incompetence. -
actually thoughtful at 11:42 AM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
I think the media should be first. While Fox leads the way, every single article which presents the "other side" as if it were intellectually equivalent, as if this is a matter of opinion, rather than science, feeds this whole monster. Every single article in the main stream press seeks to achieve "balance" - but whereas the balance should be "is it better to institute a carbon tax, or a trading scheme?" - we get "global warming is not without controversy, climate researcher Steve McIntyre says peanuts will bloom in the new deserts (or whatever" This is one of the root causes of the idiocy we are seeing in policy, in public opinion, in the actions of society as a whole.Moderator Response: [Rob P] All caps edited. No more please. Use bold tags. -
Jose_X at 11:04 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
dana1981 and mace, moderator Rob P stated at #1 that nino has ocean cooling tendencies and nina has ocean warming tendencies. It seems that many ninas can lead to the earth system heat gains manifesting themselves in the water rather than in the air. So if you only look at air temperatures, globally it may appear to go down during a nina. I think mace's implication was that a local shuffling of (air) temps, as nino/nina might involve, should affect regions but the globals should not be affected. As Rob P might suggest, that observation ignores the oceans. If we look at air+ocean temps, then nino/nina may not have much or any global trends all by themselves. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:45 AM on 6 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
This paper makes me even more frustrated with my lack of training in physics and stats. Wish I could take my 60-year-old brain back to my 12-year-old body and really try to understand more of what I was taught in school. As it is, I have to stand on the shoulders of others in order to gain an understanding of the topic. My thanks to those who take the time to explain the steps in calculating the stats. It really helps an interested outsider like me. -
Johnb at 10:21 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
Simplified I know BUT No need to argue the graphs. If you can accept that Earth has an atmosphere that allows for life. If you can accept the 19thC science that CO2 & water vapour are the principle agents in sustaining a temperate atmosphere that allows life to flourish. distinguishing Earth from our neighbours Mars or Venus you can work the rest out for yourself. Coal & Oil are stores of Carbon laid down over geological time that human creativity has found a way to use for productive work. Basically we burn both coal & oil to transform the stored Carbon into energy we control. Next time you jump in the SUV to go to work think stored energy in the tank gets burnt in the engine to produce energy to move the vehicle plus exhaust gases out the back. Every other vehicle you see on the Freeway is also pumping exhaust gases out the back and have been doing since before Henry Ford. What's in those gases and where do they go. Principally CO2, water vapour and nitrous oxides ( another known greenhouse gas). The measurement of atmospheric CO2 done at Mona Kea shows a continuing rise in recorded levels of CO2 which would suggest a good portion of exhaust gases stay in the atmosphere. Measurements of CO2 in oceans shows a similar rise suggesting that another portion is taken up by the worlds oceans. We know from the 19thC that increasing CO2 warms the atmosphere and decreasing CO2 cools the atmosphere. With increasing levels of CO2 unsurprisingly we have a warming atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere evaporates more water increasing atmospheric water moisture . My pond loses more water in summer than winter. More water vapour in the atmosphere also produces more warming. Put a pan of water on a stove and add a little heat and the water starts to gently circulate as it warms. Same with the atmosphere,in simple terms that's where we get wind and weather from. Add heat to the water in the pan and the water circulates faster, the atmosphere is no different. There's the problem, more exhaust gases more atmospheric heat, more atmospheric water, ever increasing temperatures and atmospheric circulation. American science has just told us that the volume of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere last year showed an increase of approx. 6 % . Now with money a 6% rate of interest compounded doubles your money in 12 years. If you don't like a single years figures then the average increase over 10 years comes in at 3% which gives us a doubling in 24 years. How much additional heat, water vapour and atmospheric turbulence will these numbers generate. Your call. Johnb -
Rob Painting at 09:53 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
Mace -"so you'd imagine that El Nino and La Nina events would have a more dramatic effect on the tropical ranges and a less dramatic effect on the rest of the planet based on the info you've supplied" Really? Here's the current La Nina.
What do you think should happen to the distribution of global temperatures? And what peer-reviewed paper supports this?
-
mace at 09:40 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
@Stephen Baines. Thanks. That's a logical answer which appears to match the data. The NASA GISS website produces graphs for northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere and tropical ranges, so you'd imagine that El Nino and La Nina events would have a more dramatic effect on the tropical ranges and a less dramatic effect on the rest of the planet based on the info you've supplied. The ENSO events are mapped against the tropical and global data in the "seasonal mean temperature change" graph at the bottom of this link. Nasa GISS data -
John Hartz at 09:38 AM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Another blog about the Republican Presidential candidates worth checking out: “Still Searching for Republicans with Climate Concerns” by Andrew Revkin, DOT Earth, New York Times, Jan 5, 2012 To access this timely and informative article, click“here. Note: Revkin cites Gleick’s Climate BS awards in his post. -
Stephen Baines at 09:31 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
@mace. ENSO is largely an equatorial phenomenon. That said, I don't think your concern about the hemispherical distribution of heat has much relevance in a thread about global patterns and the big picture. @JamesWilson Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of what your saying regarding uncertainty, partly because it is completely unconstrained by the actual calcuylations in the paper being referenced. I'd read Church et al, and make sure to understand it before heaving such wild criticisms about. Also, a very very small percentage of papers in the scientific literature actually get retracted, so I don't understand your point there either. -
JamesWilson at 09:30 AM on 6 January 2012Myth of the Mini Ice Age
Be careful of predictions of the future source of power. It will be determined by political policy and cost. Neither force is going to be unilateral. For example Coal at 5 cents a ton is by far the cheapest form of power. But outside China and India it is unlikely to increase much in usage. Jimmy Carter thought liquified natural gas was going to power cars and poured billions of dollars into it. As we plainly know he was wrong. So much for the politicians deciding. Somewhere in the middle we will find a power source. However we are going to need a lot less power. The consumption of consumer devices has dropped drastically in the last 20 years and that will continue. The next big step is dropping our heating and cooling energy needs. Personally I think breeder reactors are unlikely. There is too much fear mongering against new nuclear reactors to allow such a thing to be built. If the fear is justified or not is not relevant. Political pressure has basically collapsed the industry. -
CBDunkerson at 09:21 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
JamesWilson wrote: "I like I think the majority of people on both sides believe the peer review process is inherently broken. Why? Because of the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them." I can't think of a single paper on global warming which has been retracted because it overstated the AGW case. Yes, there have been several which disputed the AGW consensus which were complete nonsense... but in every case they were published in relatively obscure journals that were ill equipped or unwilling to perform proper peer review. Thus, I think that most informed people understand that the peer review process is just fine. The occasional instances of unscientific nonsense slipping through the cracks are invariably identified and dealt with in short order. Unless you can cite evidence to the contrary (i.e. examples of papers being retracted for incorrect promotion, rather than denial, of AGW) this just looks like more of your, 'I want to believe something, so I will first believe many false things to build up a 'case' for it'. The claims of massive error margins are equally baseless. Cite an example and back it up. The papers cited as the basis for the graphs in the article above explain how they arrived at those numbers and why the error margins are constrained. You simply assume otherwise with no apparent basis at all. -
Composer99 at 09:20 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
JamesWilson: Let's say you start doing the following: (a) learning enough about what you are arguing against instead of arguing from what appears to be ignorance (e.g. "How do you measure the joules the earth loses every day? How do you measure the incoming energy? What is the error margin on both?" - have you even bothered to follow the links provided in the OP to the literature describing how climatologists calculate these things?); (b) coming up with specific examples instead of vague, unsubstantiated claims (e.g. "Because of the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them" or, even better "I think the majority of people on both sides believe the peer review process is inherently broken."). You can say what you like about this or that graph being "meaningless scientifically" but if that's all you do (e.g. no reference, maths, or physics to back it up) you're not going to get very far here, I'm sorry to say. -
Rob Painting at 09:19 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
JamesWilson - the ocean heat content represents the most up-to-date estimates. Armwaving because you don't like the results is unconvincing. Many fake-skeptics have trumpeted the ocean heat measurements down to 700 mtrs when they thought it showed cooling. But now that measurements going deeper (2000 mtrs) show massive ocean warming, it's suddenly meaningless. You strain credulity. -
mace at 09:11 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
@Rob Painting, Ok, I can see that if we measure ocean temperature close to the surface, and a La Nina causes upwelling from deep, this would have a cooling effect. Would we not see a stronger cooling effect in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere, however? I'm assuming here that the cooling effect of the La Nina doesn't dissipate around the whole globe rapidly. -
JamesWilson at 09:08 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
No the graph produced is meaningless scientifically. Let me explain what I mean. I can draw a graph about something relevant. Let's say I draw a graph for the UN that shows the population peaking before 2050 and dropping. Now I ran 75 numerical series picking and choosing methods to refine the graph and my margin of error is to the nearest Trillion. (1000 times larger than to the nearest billion). What it represents is meaningful. The way it was produced although mathematically sound was not meaningful. Do you get the scientific difference? Trying to calculate the number of joules retained by the earth is by definition an almost impossible job. The numerical methods to do it might be logically sound but if you understand the math behind it it is similar to multiplying both sides of the equation by zero. Mathematically fine but not meaningful. How do you measure the joules the earth loses every day? How do you measure the incoming energy? What is the error margin on both? Every time you numerically manipulate data from the original source you introduce two problems. Error and bias. I like I think the majority of people on both sides believe the peer review process is inherently broken. Why? Because of the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them. So my goal is to look for the *least* processed/manipulated numbers. Not things that show what I want to see but which can't be argued with. Unfortunately that seems to leave very slim pickings. -
Composer99 at 09:06 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
An important qualifier to the effect that ENSO has on global surface temperature is that all ENSO does is move energy around in the Earth climate system (e.g. warming atmospheric & surface temps by cooling ocean temps or vice versa). This is contrasted with the energy imbalance caused by adding IR-trapping gases, which cause the Earth climate system to accumulate more energy in all components. -
John Hartz at 09:04 AM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
If you are interested in learning more about the scientific views of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates, you will want to check out: “Gingrich Tops Scientific American's Geek Guide to the 2012 GOP Candidates”, Scientific American, Jan 3, 2012 To access this timely and informative article, click“here. -
mace at 09:04 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
@Stephen Baines. Ok but the global mean temperatures are usually a combination of ocean and air temperatures. If the ocean is releasing heat to the air, why would this increase the mean temperature? -
Rob Painting at 09:02 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
Mace @ 20 - wrong. ENSO affects global temperatures because the Pacific Ocean is very large, and the two phases (La Nina/El Nino) distribute heat in the water column in two distinct ways. Thus: La Nina = strengthening trade winds blow warm surface water across to the western Pacific where it 'bunches up" and a substantial proportion ends up below the surface layer. The strengthening winds promote the upwelling (ekman pumping) of deeper colder water along the coast of South/ Central America. The combination of these two processes and the air-sea exchange is sufficient to cool surface temperatures globally. El Nino = the easterly trade winds shut down and heat accumulates in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean. Upwelling along the coast of America shuts off. Net result is a lot of warm water in the surface layer of the ocean. Once again because of the air-sea exchange of heat, global surface temperatures rise as heat is lost from the ocean. This meme is popping up a lot recently in the threads, so I guess I'll have to write up a post/rebuttal. -
Stephen Baines at 08:58 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
mace... Because the ocean is such a large reservoir of heat, any change in how much heat gets into (or comes out of) the oceans has a significant impact on the amount of heat in the atmosphere. El Nino actually releases heat from the ocean to the atmosphere under normal conditions, La Nina does the opposite. So there is more heat in the atmosphere after El Nino and less after La Nina. The heat in the atmsopshere is what we on land experience. Capiche? Even Spencer, Christy and Lindzen would not argue against this. -
mace at 08:58 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
@DB. I keep responding. The posts disappear. Not sure why. Still this seems to me to be a good scientific question to ask, bearing in mind that 2011 being only the 11th warmest year is accounted for by a moderate La Nina event cooling the planet. I'd include links but assume that most people on here are familiar with this information and it just takes too long to keep googling the sites and copying and pasting the urls. -
mace at 08:50 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
@dana1981, but I don't understand that bit. Why would an oscillating ocean current contribute to global mean temperature. El Nino warms America and cools Australia, La Nina does the opposite. i.e. on a regional basis it has an effect but should have no net effect globally.Response:[DB] A Reminder: It is insisted that you must first respond to the unsupported assertions you made in this comment before you can then move on to other subjects.
-
Rob Painting at 08:50 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
JamesWilson - "Scientifically I don't like this post" I'm sure you don't like it, but where's the 'scientific' argument to support your claims? "Changes in total earth heat content are pretty meaningless" Clearly the world's ice sheets, glaciers, sea level, and plants/animals don't share that ill-informed opinion. -
dana1981 at 08:39 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
JamesWilson @14 - if you're referring to Figure 2 (there are 4 figures, and thus saying "the graph" is entirely too vague), then I guarantee you have seen it on a 'skeptic' site. Any graph or claim of 'no warming since 2001' or 1998 [insert date] is illustrated by the segments (with blue lines) in Figure 2. As DB notes, making general disparaging comments without any specifics is not constructive. mace - El Nino and La Nina result in short-term warming and cooling (respectively) of global (and regional) surface temperatures. -
CBDunkerson at 08:35 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
JamesWilson, the graph rebuts claims that 'it has not warmed since 1998' and the like... which is currently #9 on the list of frequent 'skeptic' claims. If you truly have never heard that then you simply haven't been paying attention. In any case, examples of this false claim can be found in that link and many other pages on this site. The fact that you assume the lack of documentation of false claims in this overview post means that no such documentation exists, rather than that it is an overview / summary and thus not covering all the details, is indicative of interpretative bias on your part. As to your claim that margins of error in heat measurements are greater than anomalies... you provide no basis for this claim and it contradicts numerous scientific studies, including those cited for the graphs. It thus appears to be a false claim which you choose to advance and/or believe rather than dealing with the actual evidence. -
Composer99 at 08:34 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
JamesWilson: You're kidding, right? Right? Try reading the comments on your average WUWT post, or perhaps the comments on almost any news article, blog post, &c where pseudoskeptic tripe & nonsense is allowed free reign. Try reading the comments of the likes of ClimateWatcher, TOP, Fred Staples, RW1, and many others on this site alone. All over the Internet, the airwaves, and newsprint there are pseudoskeptics cherry-picking data to claim that global warming has "flattened" (or there has been "no warming since 1998" or whatever you want). The graph, showing the various decadal periods of cooling, is a satire by reductio ad absurdum. Please also substantiate your claims regarding total Earth heat content with reference to peer-reviewed scientific publications or by appeal to widely-accepted physics. Without such support, they can be safely dismissed as nonsense. -
mace at 08:29 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
How does a La Nina or El Nino event effect the global mean temperature. My understanding is that they cause cooling and warming effects on a regional basis for a short term only.Response:[DB] It is insisted that you must first respond to the unsupported assertions you made in this comment before you can then move on to other subjects.
-
DrTsk at 08:24 AM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
From Slate.com : Why Are Windmills Always White? "The white paint, which many localities require by ordinance, is also a matter of aesthetics. City planners seem to think white windmills are less of an eyesore. The white also reflects sunlight, which minimizes expansion and cracking of the gel coat that protects the fiberglass composite rotors. Not all windmills are white, though. Some Midwestern turbines are yellow to match the grain. (This doesn't work so well in the spring, when the crops are green.) German windmills are sometimes painted dark green at the bottom to blend into the forest. European rotors usually have a red stripe to make them visible to aircraft. Engineers once tried painting the rotors black to absorb sunlight and prevent icing, but it didn't seem to help much." -
CBDunkerson at 08:21 AM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
ubrew12, presumably windmills are usually white so that they can be seen easily. You seem to be suggesting that this is a bad thing, but I don't believe that is the case. While some complain that windmills are 'eye sores', most seem to like the way they look. In any case, being visible is important for aircraft and birds to be able to avoid them. A light on top wouldn't necessarily be sufficient, and would require that those lights be monitored for failure and maintained. -
JamesWilson at 08:18 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
Scientifically I don't like this post. Nothing here has enough detail to be refuted. Graphs claim "this is what the skeptics think" without actually sourcing the graph. Since I have never seen this graph on a skeptic site I am guessing no skeptics think that. In which case what is the integrity level of the Global Warming researcher that produced this? (-Snip-) Changes in total earth heat content are pretty meaningless. Let's say our margin of error in measurement is 10 digits of mantissa. Now lets draw error bars on the graph. They are bigger than the entire graph. -> Waste of time graph. Put another way how would you calculate the amount of joules entering and leaving the earth with any degree of accuracy? (-Snip-). That doesn't mean it is wrong. Just a meaningless graphed numerical model like the Mandlebrot set. Pretty but pointless.Response:[DB] "Scientifically I don't like this post."
Then give us some scientific specifics.
"Nothing here has enough detail to be refuted."
Incorrect. All of this is considered in individual posts here at SkS and the entire OP contains specific links to the peer-reviewed literature it cites.
"Since I have never seen this graph on a skeptic site I am guessing no skeptics think that."
Straw man. Because you have never seen the Emperor Caesar Augustus then that therefore means he was made up, right?
"Changes in total earth heat content are pretty meaningless."
Meaningless? It is the entire point. If you cannot understand this fundamental point then you need to comment less and learn more. QED.
Claims of falsification snipped.
-
ubrew12 at 08:10 AM on 6 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
DrTsk@#5 and CBDunkerson@#8: I hope this isn't too far afield of this thread, but why are windmills white (unless as a gift to the fossil-fuels industry)? Why not earth-tones/dark blues and purples (with prominant flashing lights on top that can't be seen from the ground)? Why do people hire landscape architects for homes and buildings and not alt energy projects? Just wondering... -
Minkie41 at 08:04 AM on 6 January 2012A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
From "The Gathering Storm" (May,1935),WS Churchill's first book in his "The Second World" series,page 112,Reprint Society,1951. "There lay in my memory at this time some lines from an unknown writer about a railway accident.I had learned them from a volume of Punch cartoons which I used to pour over when I was eight or nine years old at school at Brighton. Who is in charge of the clattering train? The axles creak and the couplings strain; And the pace is hot,and the points are near, And Sleep has deadened the driver's ear, And the signals flash through the night in vain, For Death is in charge of the clattering train."
Prev 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 Next
