Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 Next
Comments 68901 to 68950:
-
Mammal_E at 06:25 AM on 2 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Oneiota: Thanks so much for that! Fantastically informative, clear, and accessible, not to mention funny. Invoking the seasons is a great response when someone dredges up the "they can't predict the weather next week, so how can they predict the climate?" trope. -
scaddenp at 06:13 AM on 2 December 2011Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
I am amazed how you could read the SoD such. At the heart of this your perceived belief that what is observed is different from what the theory predicts for such measurements. SoD and others here instead point out that your understanding of what the theory predicts is flawed and shows how you are misinterpreting Ramanathan. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:10 AM on 2 December 2011It's the sun
Don Gaddes, I will confess that I have not read all of your father's work, but I perused all of it and read much of it in what little time I had to spare. Forgive me if this is offensive, but I believe you are doing your father a great, great disservice both in the way that you present his material and what you yourself have taken from it. Your father wrote, at the very beginning of his book:In this work the author has not attempted to persuade, merely to explain how he went about his study, and what those studies revealed. It will be for the reader to make his or her own judgment as to the correctness of the findings. Greenhouse or ice age, the answer may well be with us before we realise that our planet is a fragile, living form, constantly changing, and demanding respect, study and understanding, if we want our species to survive.
He was humble enough to recognize his own limitations, but more importantly, he demonstrated a tremendous investment in getting people to recognize the importance of climate and climate change. He did explicitly (in his book) understand and accept the realities behind CO2 and greenhouse gas theory. His only disadvantage was that events had not begun to truly play out when his book was written and before he passed away. In fact, he said:Weighing the pros and cons of dust and other cooling factors, against the “Greenhouse Effect,” I believe, at this stage, that the former is holding sway.
And that may well have been the case, to the casual observer, in 1990, and was indeed a factor in holding temperatures down until 1979. We know that since then this has become much clearer, and aerosols no longer dominate greenhouse gases in changing the climate. He goes on to say:I wholeheartedly agree with Professor R. Bryson, that if we are indeed facing an imminent climate/weather change (and the weight of evidence seems to indicate very strongly that such is highly likely,) then we ought to be earnestly and diligently marshalling our options now.
Of course, your father's concern was with an imminent glacial period, not warming, but the sentiment rings true, regardless. And I am sure that, faced with the weight of evidence against his theory and for the impact of greenhouse gases, he would at least admit that whatever influence his natural cycles had had until this point in time, mankind's burning of fossil fuels was overwhelming those forces and making his theories inconsequential in the scheme of things. From his book:Arthur Koestler (The Ghost in the Machine) put it down to “.....the streak of insanity running throughout mankind.” Omah said: “.....only a fool benefits from his own mistakes, the wise man benefits from the mistakes of others.” Bryson said: “.....mankind should benefit from the lessons of the past.” I, and I daresay by far the majority of thinking people, would agree wholeheartedly with the above conclusions. Why, then, do we not embrace Socrates’ philosophy of equating thinking with doing? Man’s tardiness in this regard is reminiscent of an ordinary land-slide (which has no brain at all!) They are both firmly enshackled to the principle of the line of least resistance (Newton’ First Law) and only Nature’s law of conservation is powerful enough (in man’s case) to exert enough’ force’ to cause us to ‘pull up our socks.’ So the nature of man must also be considered by the future writers of an equation for survival.
I will post a separate comment with what I consider to be the failings in his efforts, but I don't want to diminish them. He was an intelligent and yet uneducated (formally) man who took wholeheartedly to his hobby, pursued it with intelligence and diligence, and whether correct in his conclusions or not he demonstrated both a humility and an investment in the importance of the subject which now deserves respect, not derision. But I would ask you to read his book a little more closely, and to read between the lines, imagining what he might say today, faced with the mounting evidence, rather than what you perceive that he had said back then. He is at a disadvantage in having you as his only advocate. I believe you owe it to him to consider all of his words, and what he himself seemed more than ready to accept, which is the idea that he might be wrong, that it is frighteningly important to be right about this, and that doing so -- being right -- means being willing to always keep an open mind, and to always adjust your reasoning to the facts as they become available. -
scaddenp at 06:08 AM on 2 December 2011It's the sun
"I now present the work for 'peer review.' " Good luck on that - however a question. The problem with this kind of forecasting, is that it doesnt forecast. If the fitted cycles have no physical meaning, then the real world will drift away from forecast in accordance with real physics. So when this happens, will you be writing an apologize to climate change victims for helping to mislead - or just redoing the fitting and publishing another prediction? Ie is there some point when you would realise the folly and stop fitting? Of course, should you be right, I would stand behind a nobel prize nomination. -
DSL at 05:57 AM on 2 December 2011Wakening the Kraken
The Kraken in the news (Cape Cod Online), and with a nice picture to drive home the point. Those who doubt and do not have the time, energy, means, and/or training to understand often are swayed when the unseen becomes visible, as when someone lights a plume of methane escaping from beneath pond ice. -
PhilMorris at 05:42 AM on 2 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Extrapolating the PIOMAS graph, the artic will likely be ice free in summer within the next 10 years or less. And according to Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, the Artic could be ice free by the summer of 2015! Yet I understand that none of the current models assume Artic ice melting this quickly - I've been told that models have been assuming 2040 to 2060 before the Artic is ice free. I suppose models will get updated to reflect what is really happening - and it won't be good news! Also the models assume what is now known to be very conservative estimates of methane release from the permafrost layer. 2100 still seems to be the timeframe for showing what will happen to the planet - maybe 2050 or even earlier should be the goalpost. 2100 is too far out for ordinary people, let alone governments, to feel that consequences may affect them. A 'goalpost' just 40 years out may have a better impact on getting governments to take notice - maybe.Response:[DB] "Yet I understand that none of the current models assume Artic ice melting this quickly"
See here: Maslowski (slide 12)
Maslowski has access to a US Navy supercomputer; he specializes in high-resolution eddy processes in the Arctic. His model, the only one successfully tracking the Arctic sea ice demise, is expected to be supplanted by a much-higher-resolution model.
Maslowski notes the limitations of the existing 18 and 9 km gridded models here. Also note the existance of a 2.3 km gridded output here.
-
william5331 at 05:36 AM on 2 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
Nice comment Sphaerica. Beautiful rendition of the laws of thermodynamics. Fortunately we have a source of energy that could reverse the trend - namely the sun. If we allowed the forests to regenerate, and the biomass of the seas to recover we would store up a lot of Carbon dioxide. Sea level rise may also help as corals grow up to the new low tide level. Calcium carbonate is a tad over 60% carbon dioxide. We won't do the first two so the only thing to do is to sit down, assume the prenatal position and kiss you know what goodby. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html -
actually thoughtful at 05:33 AM on 2 December 2011Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
I personally doubt that the deniers can re-inflate the HOAX balloon - the 20% that believes anything that appears to "prove" that climate scientists are in on a big conspiracy have enough to go on from the first batch, and the rest of us will never fall for this blatant set of lies. I do wonder if giving these trumped up issues airtime helps or hurts - (ie will the myth or the facts survive a casual reading of this post). But I suppose any chance to point out the truth is worth taking. -
actually thoughtful at 05:26 AM on 2 December 2011Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
Oh - and on the foam/fiberglass debate - I am partial to drilling a hole in the back of the outlet box (easy when they are plastic) and spraying foam there - which insulates more of the gap created by the box (with batt insulation there is typically a void there). -
william5331 at 05:20 AM on 2 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
What I find hard to understand is why no political party (here in New Zealand and elsewhere) is prepared to advocate Jim Hansen's Tax and Dividend. Besides being likely to be very effective in reducing the output of Carbon dioxide, it seems like a real vote winner. Who could resist 'cocking a snook' at 'the man' and receiving a nice addition to one's credit card each month. Anybody out there understand what is happening. -
actually thoughtful at 05:16 AM on 2 December 2011Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
Daniel - nice post. If you don't mind sharing what your heating/cooling system is (40-60% of typical American home energy consumption) and how you heat your hot water (20% of typical consumption) - I would be glad to share a *very* green plumber/heating professional's opinion for improvements. -
Nick Palmer at 05:01 AM on 2 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
I think Sphaerica's joke @9 highlights the difference between a true sceptic and a pathological sceptic aka denialist. A true sceptic would just enquire whether you had checked that power was getting to the bulb then would accept the necessity for the bulb changing. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:49 AM on 2 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
tmac, Sadly, it would be lucky if it only takes as much energy to scrub the atmosphere as we got from burning fossil fuels. The laws of thermodynamics rather almost require that it will take more energy (rather than merely the same amount) to reverse the process. Remember, in a nutshell the laws of thermodynamics say:- You can't win
- You can't break even unless it is very, very cold
- It never gets that cold
- You can't quit the game.
-
Bob Lacatena at 04:40 AM on 2 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
tmac, I have no problem at all with the "Skeptic movement" as represented by the links you and Tom supplied. In fact I pretty much adamantly agree with whatever I read there... it looks more to me like level-headed common-sense than any special attribute like "skepticism." [Which perhaps doesn't speak well for the gullibility and education of the common man. :) ] That said, I don't really spend much time worrying about the debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories or how the world might end in 2012 and such. I didn't find much meat there to sink my teeth into, just because most of the subjects covered struck me as "what, someone actually has to spend energy on this?" With that said... if there is a body of true skeptics who label and view themselves as such, they need to go on the offensive against deniers, and be rather timidly accepting if those involved in discussing climate science fail to recognize the distinction, because in my interactions in the past two years, the deniers are the prominent (and until today sole) owners of the skeptic label. -
It's the sun
Muoncounter - Agreed. A 30°/month shift of the Earth magnetic field would not be a "drift", but more of a "spin". And as someone who quite frequently uses magnetic compasses in navigation, I'll point out that this would be more than noticeable. It would render compasses useless... -
Bob Lacatena at 04:35 AM on 2 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
14, DB, Looks more like a "Death Undertow" than a death spiral, in this case. -
tmac57 at 04:03 AM on 2 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Sphaerica-I understand your frustration,but keep in mind that these Skeptics are not solely dealing with climate change.They have a very wide range of topics of all kinds of pseudo-science that they are tackling.Also,I think that there aren't too many that are actual climate scientists,so they do more reporting on current issues like so called Climategate,the BEST report,and such,but leave the analysis to those who do the science.I actually found my way to this site from a link that a commenter on Neurologica gave,while arguing against a denier. Keep an open mind about the real Skeptic movement,we are your ally,not an enemy.We cannot help it if the 'skeptic' name has been hijacked by the deniers,and we do very much resent it,and reject their claim.They are pseudo-skeptics,and science deniers. -
tmac57 at 03:33 AM on 2 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
Thanks to all DB and others for the resources.That's why I really enjoy SkS,everyone is so willing to help with answers and link to good educational material. -
pauls at 03:26 AM on 2 December 2011Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
I don't think David Appell can be regarded as a 'denialist'.Response:[dana1981] Thanks, I shouldn't have assumed. Text revised.
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:23 AM on 2 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Another graph from PIOMAS:
"Total Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS showing the volume of the mean annual cycle, the current year, 2010 (the year of previous September volume minimum), and 2007 (the year of minimum sea ice extent in September). Shaded areas indicate one and two standard deviations from the mean."
[Source] Yup, the Death Spiral? Still happenin'... -
dana1981 at 03:11 AM on 2 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Sphaerica - I think we'll do our own similar analysis at year's end, so you can nitpick us at that point :-) -
dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 2 December 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Dr. Schmittner - I chose 67% simply as a very rough estimate (equilibrium sensitivity is ~3°C for 2xCO2 and transient is ~2°C for 2xCO2, according to the IPCC), but I don't think the ratio is constant with time (among other things I believe it depends on the magnitude of the net forcing). Figure 4 is merely meant as a rough approximation, but it should be reasonably close to reality. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:53 AM on 2 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
I'd like to see the first graph with the El Nino years in red. Being a bit of a nitpicker, I'd probably actually prefer that the bars be divided in half for color representation (often only one half of one year is La Nina/El Nino). To keep deniers happy one might also change the base color from pink to gray (pink is too warm a color, so you are subliminally saying "warm, warm, warm" to their tiny, unconscious little brains). -
dakiller6 at 02:47 AM on 2 December 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
CBDunkerson and Rob Painting - Thank you! -
perseus at 02:31 AM on 2 December 2011Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
adelady Well yes it's possible to technically do it with enough subsidies. I presume it is Iowa you live in? It's analogous to Denmark because they can rely on larger surrounding states/countries to buffer the variability in supplies with conventional sources. I also recall the mid West is one of the best areas in the world for consistency in wind speeds, this is more important than average power. Unfortunately we in the UK have been driven offshore!
Response:[DB] Please restrict image widths to 500 pixels or less.
-
muoncounter at 02:24 AM on 2 December 2011It's the sun
KR: Or one could use actual physics, which gives the earth's magnetic field's westward drift at 0.2 deg/yr. Mr. Gaddes' "migrating longitudinally around the planet,(30 degrees/month with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic Field,)" would be quite noticeable - and could hardly be called 'drift'. -
Don Gaddes at 02:14 AM on 2 December 2011It's the sun
I now present the work for 'peer review.' But that means you all have to read it! -
It's the sun
I have on occasion considered running curve-fitting between global temperatures and (for example) observed cicada swarming. Should be easy - cicadas have swarm cycles from 2-17 years, with heavy emphasis on prime number values. Given a stated time period of temperature data, and treating cicada cycles as sinusoids or impulse functions with delay effects, I am certain I could find a regression weighting that would match observed temperatures. Of course, that would have exactly zero explanatory value regarding the climate - cicadas do not have a causal relationship forcing global temperatures. And my 'predictions' outside the fitting range would be completely worthless. The only way to obtain a real prediction of future climate behavior is by looking at the actual physics in operation - forcings, feedbacks, etc. Such as (again, for example) greenhouse gases, El Nino variations, observed insolation, etc. I don't know if I ran across this idea on Tamino, or elsewhere, but I rank things thusly: - Physics are better predictors than statistics - Good statistics are better predictors than bad statistics - Bad statistics are a toss-up with "Just So Stories" This is the real problem with "climastrology", such as Loehle and Scafetta's curve fitting, or (IMO) numerology such as the astrological 'cycle' fits recently commented upon. No physics connection to the climate, no mechanism, and hence correlation without causation - and no predictive value. -
Tom Curtis at 01:47 AM on 2 December 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
skept.fr @61, I'm sure Pierrehumbert means no such thing. The difference between AOGM's and the UVic model, however, is that over ice clouds are definitely warming agents. So, when modeling the LGM, we can be sure that whatever discrepancy is caused by the lack of clouds in the UVic model will be increased. In contrast, with AOGCM's, they may well not capture cloud effects accurately, but there is no reason to think their distortion will change between industrial and LGM conditions. Further, I am sure that Pierrehumbert would agree that this style of study would be best done with an ensemble of AOGCMs if funding permitted, to avoid distortions that arise from any given model. In this context, it should be noted that Schmittner et al acknowledge that the UVic model performs poorly over the Antarctic ice sheet. That is not reason for confidence in its performance over the continental ice sheets of the LGM. However, this is beside the point for me. It is not the failure to represent clouds, but the fixed lapse rate and the lack of a hydrological cycle which is relevant to the issue of land/ocean warming ratio. Pierrehumbert, or course, has broader concerns. -
DSL at 01:41 AM on 2 December 2011It's the sun
Actually, DB, I thought it might be the lost chapter to Foucault's Pendulum or, given the overuse of capitalization and other features, a supplement to Mason & Dixon. Don, are you saying that the 'Dry Cycles' have caused the Recent Spike in global average temps? Are you also saying that CO2 does not absorb and emit at a well-defined set of pressure-broadened frequencies within the same infrared range at which the surface also emits? Are you also claiming that the observed stratospheric cooling trend is a result (somehow - physical mechanism? I don't have to show you no stinking physical mechanisms!) of these dry cycles? I'm beginning to hear a catchy tune . . . the Music of the Spheres? -
Bob Lacatena at 01:39 AM on 2 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
36, Lloyd Flack, If she actually got bogged down in any details enough to learn about them, she'd start to see what I saw long ago, which is that each and ever skeptic argument is a house of cards. When enough of them collapse, one starts being very wary of the next stupid argument they trot out. That your friend hasn't reached this point suggests to me that her thinking stops as soon as she arrives at a conclusion she likes -- and that is archetypical denier (not skeptic) behavior. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:37 AM on 2 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
37, tmac57, Interesting. But now I'm upset that they are not far more vocal and livid with deniers. How can they have allowed such non-skeptics to adopt and so redefine the mantle of "skeptic." Every one of those sites you and Tom have given should be all over WUWT and other denial travesties. From a climate science perspective, however, such skeptics have no standing, exactly because they have been invisible. In the realm of climate science, skeptic is a code word for denier, and until that changes, my first (and correct) instinct in dealing with anyone who is self-identified as a skeptic will be to deal with them as a denier (because 9,999 out of 10,000 of such people in climate science are deniers). -
tmac57 at 01:27 AM on 2 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Sphareica- To add to what Tom and oneiota posted: The CFI http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ (heavy emphasis on secularism/humanism) The JREF http://www.randi.org/site/ (famous for issuing a million dollar challenge to anyone who can demonstrate any "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." Science Based Medicine (SBM) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ From those starting points,you can follow the links to other Skeptical blogs and podcasts such as The Skeptics Guide To The Universe and Richard Saunder's fine podcast The Skeptic Zone from Australia. In Canada theres Skeptically Speaking http://www.skepticallyspeaking.com/ and Skeptic North http://www.skepticnorth.com/ In the UK Ben Goldacre's http://www.badscience.net/,and I second Oneiota's recommendation for Sense About Science. You will find the content and tone different at these various sites,but you should find something that suits your sensibilities. -
Lloyd Flack at 01:22 AM on 2 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Sphaerica #28, I know the individual. It is mostly misleading experience and consequent intuitions. You see experience in some fields can make it easier to get boged down in the details and harder to see the complete picture. -
skept.fr at 00:45 AM on 2 December 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
#53 Tom : Hard for me to understand why we disagree about proxy/model discrepancies... I think I'm OK with your point : "one of the model warming ratios, the land proxy temperatures, the sea proxy temperatures, or both, are in error because of the discrepancy between the Warming ratio found by Schmittner et al, and that from models in Sutton et al." For the Pierrehumbert critics about cloudiness, does he mean that AOGCM correctly simulate the cloud? It would be a great surprise for me (see CFMIP last considerations about that, still large divergence among models in CMIP5). Of course UVic model have major simplifications (the authors acknowledged), but as AOGCM models have major uncertainties in cloud simulation, I don't see clearly whose would be the more robust for telling us with a reasonable precision the cumulus / stratus latitudinal amounts 10, 14 or 20 ky ago!! Inapprehensible for me, we would correctly realize in past climates with much more unknowns (like total aerosol load) what we poorly realize with present climate, far better observed? -
les at 00:41 AM on 2 December 2011It's the sun
919 - Gaddes "We believe in 'Gravity' though we don't know what it is." I believe this, along with your predilection for epicycles, is clear evidence that you have been transported here from the medieval period. Since your time, there have been some advances; most notably Einstein and The Internet/google/Wikipedia... you can use the latter to learn about the former and discover that we know very well what gravity is. -
Jeffrey Davis at 00:37 AM on 2 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Figure 1 is a great graph. Better at showing the steady warming of the last 30 years than the usual rolling average graphs. Making a distinction between El Nino and La Nina years is a great addition. -
muoncounter at 00:32 AM on 2 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
adelady#33: It's much simpler to use the term 'denier' as 'one who denies the evidence.' That fits the bill for just about any subject. -
Ogemaniac at 23:54 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
@ Tom Curtis " if there was a strong el nino in 2013, we would hear the denier refrain for the next 5 years that it hasn't warmed since 2013" Don't you mean for the next 13 years, and counting? That's how long they have been hanging their hats on 1998 as prime cherry to pick. -
Ogemaniac at 23:48 PM on 1 December 2011Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
My personal solution - move to Japan. It's cut my emissions by about half. My wife and I dropped from one car (a Prius) to zero. Our apartment shrank by a third. Like most Japanese, we have no clothes drier. Food here tends to be more local and farmed in a more sustainable manner than in the US. Our rice and most of our seasonable vegetables, in fact, are grown on my wife's family plots. We using less heating and cooling, partly because we need less (moderate climate, smaller apartment) and partly because that's just the way things are done here. We use less electricity as well, for the same reasons. We are typical for Japanese, but that automatically implies that we have about half the environmental impact of a typical American. And you know what - the quality life here is completely comparible to the quality of life in America, all across the income spectrum. In fact, I would argue it is quite a bit better for the bottom third. But that is another subject entirely. Either way, this country proves that there is no substantial trade-off between the good life and drastically cutting one's emissions. -
Tom Curtis at 22:49 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
newscrusader @8, if there was a strong el nino in 2013, we would hear the denier refrain for the next 5 years that it hasn't warmed since 2013, so global warming has stopped and global cooling is about to start. -
newcrusader at 21:46 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
I wonder what it will look like when we have a strong El Nino? -
bowdawg at 21:18 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
I tend to agree with what Tamino wrote about skeptics recently on a post at Real Climate, as follows: Fake skeptics like Anthony Watts try to blame global warming on bad station siting. Turns out he was wrong. Then they try to blame it on dropout of reporting stations. Turns out that was wrong. The fake skeptics can hardly contain their worship for a new team to estimate temperature (the Berkeley team) which is started by a skeptic. They’re sure the new estimate will prove that the other estimates are fraudulent. Anthony Watts proclaims that he’ll accept whatever their results are, even if it contradicts him. It contradicts him. He refuses to accept their results. He launches into multiple tirades to discredit the new effort. Fake skeptics try to blame global warming on UHI. Turns out they were wrong. Fake skeptics try to claim global warming has “paused” or “slowed down” or isn’t even happening. Turns out they were wrong. Scoundrels resort to stealing a bunch of private emails and take them out of context so they can launch a campaign of character assassination. Multiple investigations follow, the science of global warming is vindicated. Again. The fake skeptics have got nothing. Zero. Zip. Squat. With all the real science against them, apparently their only recourse is to look for “sloppy seconds” in the stolen emails in a lame attempt to revive their smear campaign. It tells us all we need to know about the so-called “skeptics.” They are pathetic. I’m tempted to laugh — but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate. Comment by tamino — 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:03 PM It is these "Fake Skeptics" I would refer to as deniers. -
adelady at 20:20 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
The funny thing about using the term "skeptic" is that I find I have to shift mental gears when moving from climate discussions to medical topics. When it comes to medicine, the "skeptics" and skepticism are about SBM, science based medicine - as against those advocating non/anti-scientific ideas about cancer therapies, anti-vaccination and the like. Me? I'd rather refer to climate deniers as self-styled skeptics to indicate a judgment that I/we don't accept the skeptic characterisation, but we politely refrain from clearly pejorative qualifiers such as pseudo or fake to express our non-acceptance. -
oneiota at 20:18 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
I'm glad you liked it! I know he's just talking about the weather but you need to start somewhere....understanding what drives the weather leads to understanding what drives the climate. Everyone (including the layman) is interested in the weather because the forecast informs our decisions about what to wear. As the weather changes so does our response...so should our informed response be to climate change. -
adelady at 19:57 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
oneiota. Thanks for that. It doesn't really belong on the debunking threads, but this is an outstanding example of science communication. Everyone who hasn't already read it - go for it. -
cynicus at 19:57 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
oneiota, that you for that link to the Australian rain assessment. It was both entertaining and instructive, a rare combination. Well worth the read. -
chriskoz at 19:38 PM on 1 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
tmac57 @17, Wouldn't it be ironic if we had to end up using as much energy to 'scrub' out the Co2 from our atmosphere,as it took burning fossil fuels,to put it there? I agree, reasonable balance of things means that the reversing of the reaction of burning C requires as much energy as was released multiplied by the efficiency of the reversal process. Natural processes are inefficient by far (i.e. photosynthesis is only at some 10% max, maybe even less I don't know) so forget about any help from nature to do that. That is confirmed by the studies above. So it's not just ironic but simply obvious that to "fix" that imbalance we need to reverse the energy flow. But there is some good news: human ingenuity cannot be included in those models. Who knows, in some 100y someone (a modern-day "divine savior") may invent an "artificial photosynthesis" working at close to 100% efficiency with which our descendents will start pumping extracted C directly into the empty holes (mines) we left to them as our heritage. And there is plenty of sun energy to do that. Of course it's SF but at least some hope that AGW is reversible in theory and humanity does not need to be cursed for 10-100ky. -
AndreasSchmittner at 19:04 PM on 1 December 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
dana: yes, I overlooked that, and I apologize. I guess for a blog you don't have to justify the choice of your number (67%). I'd still be curious. Will it be constant with time? -
Don Gaddes at 18:32 PM on 1 December 2011It's the sun
I'm saying there were no 'peers' working in the field of 'Dry Cycle' prediction. A S Gaddes sought and followed the advice of many scientific 'peers' at the time and many of them provided him with important papers and discussion pertaining to his work.(See his References) The data was able to be extrapolated after his death, because of the 'Ratios Principle.' It involves basic maths and is a perpetual equation. And yes, the Rotation and Gravitation of the Sun/Moon/Earth do include 'Physical Mechanisms.' The 'extraordinary burden of proof' you seek will be provided in the onset of future 'Dry Cycles' (if you do not wish to bother with the historical record.)How will the GBR react with an extended period of 'run-off' in 2013-14? Or how will Australian agriculture fare with a Five Year Drought From 2015-19? South-East Queensland will be in a severe state of water deprivation. pbjamm (917) mentioned the absence of Global Average Temperature prediction. This is relevant with the AGW hype surrounding the recent BEST Report. If the 'Dry Cycles,' are migrating longitudinally around the planet,(30 degrees/month with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic Field,) then the surface temperature will fluctuate as the cycles pass over the various measuring stations, (increasing while under the influence of the 'Dry Cycle' and decreasing in the subsequent 'Wet'/ Normal period. These fluctuations would be also subject to any volcanic (or other) 'albedo' effect. As these 'Cycles' last from one to five years, it does not seem relevant or possible to make generalisations about surface temperature.(see also Convection Still.)Response:[DB] "I'm saying there were no 'peers' working in the field of 'Dry Cycle' prediction. A S Gaddes sought and followed the advice of many scientific 'peers' at the time and many of them provided him with important papers and discussion pertaining to his work."
Now you resort to "termastrology". Uncontent with the standard definition of peer review, you redefine it to make the term more convenient to your position. By not publishing the work in a peer-reviewed, scientifically relevant journal the work by definition is not peer-reviewed.
This is a forum in which the science of climate change is discussed and explored. By science meaning peer-reviewed articles published by working scientists in the field in scientifically relevant papers. Nothing you have presented thus far meets those standards.
Thus, the reader of this blog will be unable to differentiate between what you have presented thus far and the works of Hapgood, Velikovsky, Burroughs (my favorite is where the famed scientist Tar Zan exlores the inner world of Pellucidar) and Hubbard. But lacking the entertainment value.
If you wish to further explore your claims, pick the ONE mechanism you feel most strongly about (the one you wish to "hang your hat on"), use the Search function in the upper left corner to find the most relevant thread and initiate a dialogue on it there. You waste everyone's time here with this Gish Gallop approach.
Prev 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 Next
