Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 Next
Comments 70151 to 70200:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 11:24 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
Are there alternatives to street lights and parking lots lights for safety? (assuming that most of that light is bouncing off the ground) -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:05 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
skept.fr, that is an interesting fig. 3 in your reference and is worth examining further. It suggests that per capita energy use can be cut significantly here in the USA without lowering the HDI. Also does more energy use per capita lead to more education, or does more education lead to more energy use? -
Albatross at 10:54 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Tom @36, "If a philosophy graduate can recognize that so easily, then a PhD in science who must at least know the meaning of statistical significance cannot be taken in by such sophistry. There, therefore, can be no excuse for their promulgation of anti-science." I agree. Kudos to you Tom, I had always assumed that you were a publishing scientist from your fact-filled and thoughtful and reasoned posts. Pielke and Curry could learn a thing or two from you ;) I am dumbfounded that the AGU and others continue to stand behind Pielke Senior after years of him misinforming. In my opinion, Pielke Senior is bringing the AGU (and CIRES his current affiliation) into disrepute and they should not stand for it. My dad was a professional engineer, he had to abide by certain principles and a code of ethics. Had he behaved as Pielke Senior has been in the public domain he would have no doubt had his professional status and privileges rescinded, or at the very least been hauled before a committee to explain himself. It is galling that these guys continue get away with this scot-free. -
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
"Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus." And there we have the nub of issue. We have a large enough segment of the population who would rather believe in fairies than confront an uncomfortable reality, and are blocking effective action. Sadly, there is no way to ensure that the negative effects of inaction fall only on the stupid and their children. -
skept.fr at 10:52 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Concerning energy correlate, this document for example : http://www.undp.org/energy/docs/WEAOU_part_II.pdf As you can see in Figure 3 , p. 27, per capita energy consumption is linked to Human Development Index (which includes literacy and education). For more precise estimations, you can also read Vaclav Smill ‘Energy in Nature and Society’(MIT Press 2008, pp346-347 and references), or use Gapminder (wealth and health of nations in comparison of CO2 emission). Of course, people’s life in poorest countries can be improved by many ways including political and juridical reform without energy cost. Also, a 60-110 GJ/hab/y seems to be a very sufficient for numerous needs, and the extreme consumption of richest countries (especially USA !) is by no way a model. If energy is useful for human development and welfare, it doesn’t mean necessarily carbon-based energy. But the problem is far from simple : for example, Iceland gets 80% of its primary energy from renewable (geothermia and hydro), but nevertheless, its per capita emission of CO2 are greater than France or Germany. Even with very low-cost and abundant renewable (rare conditions that Iceland meets), it’s difficult to avoid oil use (and in this case coal for alu plants). And more broadly, I’m also attached to many humanitarian concern other than climate, because when people die or suffer or starve, you have no moral foundation for sacrifying them to future generations. I cannot blame South Africa for using coal as we did one century ago, but of course I would prefer CCS coal-plants if the technology is available. I strongly agree that we need an energy transition for this century (for different reasons including climate, but also fossil depletion, sustainable development, etc.) as well as a true evaluation / compensation of social and environmental cost of carbon. So AIE report is welcome. My concern is more the realistic pace of the transition and the sincerity / clarity of its discussion in public debate. The denial of climate change risks or coal/oil/gas externalities shouldn’t be answered by a denial of energy change risks or insufficient energy externalities. PS : For ‘modern world’, sorry, it must be a gallicism. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:44 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Skept.fr, I would like to see the following statements of yours substantiated: "2007-2008 food crisis partly caused by biofuels" "economic recession partly associated with rising prices of oil and commodities" If this latter one refers to the recent economic recession, it was brought almost exclusively by poorly regulated banking practices and deeply flawed economic models used in the financial industry. I note that nobody (absolutely nobody) in the so-called skeptic camp had voiced doubts on the validity of these models before they crashed the world economy and skeptics are also eerily silent about them since, despite their proven track record of failure. And this is really a failure that cost trillions, verifiable, obvious for all to see, unlike the fictitious or hypothetical ones that skeptics always cry about when "debating" climate mitigating economic policies. -
Tom Curtis at 10:32 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Albatross @33, the galling thing with Pielke (and Curry) is that while Watts may literally not know what is wrong with projecting short term trends, Curry and Pielke certainly do. When I first encountered similar arguments regarding the temperature record, and my knowledge of statistics could have been written on a business card, I just looked at the temperature record and saw very similar "pauses" in the temperature record in the past. Obviously, if the argument was any good now, it was equally good during those pauses, and therefore that if the short term trends post 1998 refuted global warming, then so did the short term trends post 1980 and post 1988. I proceeded on the assumption that climate scientists are not complete fools, that they were not promulgating a theory that had been refuted by obvious data 25 years ago. Ergo from short term trends must be bad. If a philosophy graduate can recognize that so easily, then a PhD in science who must at least know the meaning of statistical significance cannot be taken in by such sophistry. There, therefore, can be no excuse for their promulgation of anti-science. -
Albatross at 10:29 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Tom @34, Thanks for your post. Why am I still shocked by the blatant lies, distortions and misrepresentations of the deniers? -
Moloch at 10:25 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
The IEA factsheets and key graphs links in the article point to the 2010 Outlook. 2011 Factsheets here http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/factsheets.pdf and key graphs http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/key_graphs.pdf Cheers JeffModerator Response: [AS]Thanks! I corrected the links. -
Tom Curtis at 10:20 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Albatross @30, thankyou for the links. In particular John Kehr's breathtaking effort at WUWT says:"One fact is certain. A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern. In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100, the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years. Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely."
gives perspective to pirate's claims @4 and Arkadiusz's claims @21. You will have noted that in defending denier honour they have only denied that deniers have taken the most extreme stance, ie, that 2010 was the start of a long term negative trend. Perhaps, but denier's have clearly drawn long term conclusions about probable trends from 2010. That leaves aside Kehr's persistent misrepresentation of the IPCC as predicting 1 meter of sea rise by 2100. In fact they predict only 0.425 meters of sea level rise (the mean of the worst case prediction, 95% confidence interval of 0.26 to 0.59). Such flagrant misrepresentation must be why Roger Pielke Snr has such a high opinion of WUWT as a science site [/sarcasm]. Even more breathtaking are the claims at the site to which Arkadiusz links. Note the carefully placed qualifiers (underlined) in his claim that no denier "...says that: warming has no effect on sea level rise, or that the current decline is certainly the beginning of the long-term trend." Perhaps not, but deniers are certainly glad to say warming has little effect, and more importantly that the decline in sea level gives significant reason to expect low long term trends. From Arkadiusz chosen site we see short term trends projected out to 90 years with the claim that:"empirical evidence is suggesting a far less worrisome, non-catastrophic increase in sea levels than what the taxpayer funded alarmist "experts" have predicted. Based on this real world data, it's highly unlikely that major coastal regions will be impacted by the wildly speculative higher sea levels."
(My emphasis) "Highly unlikely" based on a short term trend from a satellite data set in significant disagreement with four other satellite data sets, and with the tidal gauge record. Nothing uncautious about that [/sarcasm]. And that is the example Arkadiusz gives of the reasonable projections made by deniers from short term trends. -
Albatross at 10:18 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Hi Skywatcher @32, I know, annoying is it not? Pielke et al. just keep repeating the same old cherry picking and BS (bad science). They have a good recipe going: 1) Make a demonstrably false and/or misleading assertion, 2) Rarely, if ever, concede error or correct errors, 3) Repeat. Unbelievable that Pielke Senior is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, in other words he does know better, yet insists on embarking on misinformation campaigns. But I draw the line at him misleading impressionable students as shown here. I wonder in what capacity Pielke senior is engaging in this latest bout of misinformation? Was his Q&A part of CIRES outreach initiative or something else? Maybe the AGU should revisit their decision... -
skywatcher at 09:53 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
#30 Albatross, I had a rather strong case of deja vu reading your link to Tim Lambert there... -
skywatcher at 09:47 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
There's quite a few more of these kinds of time-lapse movies from the ISS at a NASA page here. Lovely! -
Paul D at 09:20 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
skept.fr "Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity..." Education?? You also distort the use of the word modern. Modern does not equate to anything you have stated. All 'modern' means is that it refers to today as opposed to the past. Hence by definition a modern world can be anything that people want. So 'the very base' of a modern world could for all intents and purposes anything. What you have done is imposed what you think it should be and assume there is no negotiation. -
Andy Skuce at 09:01 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Skept.fr @2: Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus. I fully agree, which is the reason that I lamented the fact (in the first paragraph, above) that this report is not freely available. And, as you say, the costs and risks of changing our energy infrastructure do need to be better defined. However much we find things to criticize the IEA for, I think we should be grateful that the organization is directing a lot of its resources to helping resolve the climate crisis. The original mandate for the IEA was to coordinate a response to the oil supply crisis in the 1970's. Given that start, it could easily have evolved into an organization devoted to maintaining the energy status quo, rather than, as it now does, proposing constructive pathways to a sustainable future. -
Kevin C at 08:41 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Skept@2:Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity, etc.
Is that necessarily the case? This was a predicate of mid-20thC US economics, but I don't think that it is consistent with recent data. See for example this report.
-
martin porter at 08:34 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
This fantastic video shows just how much of our energy we are wasting! All the pretty lights, especially noticable in places like California, are just what astronomers call light polution. Think of how much energy AND money could be saved if we only lit up things to the extent we actually need! -
steve from virginia at 08:33 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
Hmmmm .... Atmosphere, mighty skimpy. Better take care of it. Looks like a long way to other dots up there ... -
Tom Curtis at 08:28 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
skept.fr @2, discovery of new conventional oil reserves are starting to fall behind production. What is more, world reserves of Oil and Gas constitute significantly less than a century's supply at current consumption rates. That means we are going to see an energy transition over the next 30 years regardless. Any risk involved in that transition will be there, whether we convert from conventional fossil fuels to unconventional fossil fuels such as the Athabasca tar sands, or opt instead for clean energy. I will note, on the side, that the adverse effects of coal on health are so large that even a Fukushima accident every 5 years (which is very unlikely) would still not match the harm done by coal. -
Albatross at 08:12 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr. Bickmore @35, Oh I am pretty sure that was the case, at least going by my wife's feedback :) She was astounded by the shenanigans that serial misinformers like Monckton have been up to. -
bbickmore at 07:38 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Albatross @32, I certainly hope so! -
dana1981 at 07:37 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
I think it was Lonnie Thompson who said climate change impacts will be split between mitigation, adaption, and suffering. The longer we wait to mitigate, the more we'll have to adapt and suffer. That's the main message from this report. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:18 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr Bickmore, Excellent presentation, but for myself I thought the missing slide/graph really hurt. If there's any way that you could update the presentation (maybe give it again at another locale) I would recommend doing so. -
michael sweet at 07:15 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Skept, There is no guarantee that that if we limit carbon we will all live in paradise. It may be the case that we are too late already. The evidence indicates that more carbon dioxide is bad. If we limit CO2 pollution we will be better off than if we emit more CO2. There remains the possibility of problems, both ones we know about and ones we have not anticipated. If we do nothing the carbon will run out anyway (WUWT had an article yesterday suggesting carbon emissions would peak in 2030) and then we will have no carbon and a ruined ecosystem. Wouldn't it be better to try to preserve soemmthing? If you are in the bottom of a hole the first step to getting out again is to stop digging. -
Composer99 at 06:57 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr Bickmore: A very well-done presentation indeed. I found it quite enjoyable and elucidating. -
skept.fr at 06:51 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
We must reduce our energy consumption, rise the price of fossil fuel, accept biofuels and nuclear… on one hand, these choices limit climate risks, and everybody agrees with that, but on the other hand, are they totally risk-free ? Energy is the very base of modern world, it is positively correlated to health, wealth, education, longevity, etc. so it’s hard for me to imagine a scenario which can change in one generation this secular energy basis and guarantee there is zero probability of adverse effects, for 7 billions humans today and 8 billions in 2030 (not just the rich club of OECD). Because we do have examples of such adverse effects in reality, not models : Fukushima 2011 for nuclear, 2007-2008 food crisis partly caused by biofuels, economic recession partly associated with rising prices of oil and commodities, etc. As a French citizen, I’m personally ‘habituated’ to a nuclear-based electricity, a highly taxed gazoline, a state control, etc. so a little more or less would not be a revolution (as it may be, say, for a Texan conservative owning 2 pick-up and 3 SUV). But I think a too manichean discourse (either climate hell or carbon-free paradise) will be hardly convincing. Such reforms need long-term populations agreement and support, not just expert consensus. We know the benefices (climate stabilization) but what are the costs and hazards? -
Albatross at 06:48 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Hi Dr. Bickmore, Thanks. I assume that they were gasping and laughing at the inanity of the tricks and tactics of the "skeptics" that you were speaking to? -
bbickmore at 06:38 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Albatross @29, I don't know what people think, but one of the people at the university where I gave the presentation said the students around him were either gasping or laughing the whole time. We live in a very conservative area, so odds are that many of those students were conservative, like me. That was about the reaction I was shooting for. -
wingding at 06:14 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
its funny how noone ever knows any skeptics -
muoncounter at 05:55 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr. Bickmore, Very well said! I note that the expectation that the average individual can become a self-taught 'expert' - or think they should be able to 'verify' mainstream science in their kitchen - is part of this problem. We have a large part of the population that is told 'you can't trust scientists' and yet they still drive cars over bridges, fly in airplanes and take medications; their electricity works (most of the time) as do their cell phones and computers. If they felt that had to 'verify' any of those disciplines before applying them, their lives would come screeching to a halt. -
Albatross at 05:51 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Dr. Bickmore, Excellent presentation! But what do people think who are not involved in this "debate"? My wife (a scientist too) actually happened on your talk while I still had it up for view on the computer and she started watching it (she went back to the beginning). She said that she got 'sucked in'. She found it great to watch and your arguments very compelling. She normally doesn't get overly animated about this sort of stuff, but she and I ended up talking about your presentation for a long time. So your talk really connected with someone who has very little understanding of climate science, but who understands good science. So again, thank you for this! -
Albatross at 05:36 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
In response to those "skeptics" here claiming that "the current decline is certainly the beginning of the long-term trend." You missed the posts at Goddard's web site then, and posts like this at the misinformer site WUWT. And this is not the first time "skeptics" have tried this trick with sea level. For example, this effort to mislead by Pielke Senior from mid 2009 was exposed by Tim Lambert and RealClimate. -
bbickmore at 05:33 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
Pirate, My qualifications for doing the presentation are as follows. 1) I am a former climate change "skeptic", so I am uniquely qualified to talk about why I changed my mind. 2) I have a PhD in geochemistry, which is very related to a lot of climate science, so when I started looking into the matter it was a lot easier for me than most people. 3) I have actually gone to all the trouble of deconstructing claims by the likes of Monckton and Roy Spencer, and climate experts have told me I did a good job. 4) I am a science educator, so it's my job to explain things that go beyond my immediate expertise. That's all. And since I didn't say anything about the science that the vast majority of experts wouldn't agree with, what's the problem? I was merely explaining the current state of the science, like any good science educator would. If, on the other hand, I had inflated my credentials, or if I were a non-expert challenging the vast majority of experts, those would be valid things to point out. We can moan and groan all we want about how "science is about evidence, not consensus," and demand that everyone examine all the evidence themselves, and avoid coming to any conclusions before then. But the fact is that consensus does play a part in science (as does evidence,) and people don't have the time or inclination to become experts in every field that affects their lives. Since that is the case, we rely very heavily on expert testimony, so "consensus" would be important for the PUBLIC debate, even if it were not important for the scientific debate. -
dana1981 at 05:21 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Monckton has actually repeated Nils-Axel Morner's absurd claims that sea level hasn't risen in 50 years. -
Manwichstick at 05:17 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
@apiratelooksat50 #4 "I don't know of any skeptics making a claim that sea level rise has ended." I know of one. Lord Christopher Monckton was on my local airwaves claiming that sea level rise has reversed. I'm not sure if he has any credibility in your books, but I was quite angry that he was contributing to the scientific illiteracy of that radio station's listeners. -
arch stanton at 05:15 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
We sure use a lot of energy lighting up space don’t we? Fantastic clip, thank you John. -
John Hartz at 05:07 AM on 16 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Andy S: Kudos on an excellent and timely post. The findings of the IEA study are getting world-wide attention in the business sector. Perhaps this exposure will cause business leaders throughout the world to stand up and pay attention to what the scientific community is telling us about climate change. -
pmiddents at 05:05 AM on 16 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
John Nielsen-Gammon has an interesting comment up on RC11 Paul -
Paul D at 04:57 AM on 16 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
The youtube blurb states they used a low light camera and did some processing on images. -
DSL at 04:39 AM on 16 November 2011It's waste heat
Tom C: "Given my very low opinion of people who resort to such tactics (-snip-), unless your next response is a clear and direct statement of your theory . . ." Unless, of course, jmorpuss decides to begin asking questions (on the appropriate threads) about AGW or criticisms of the "radio wave hot spot" proposition, and those questions are asked with the intention to learn and engage rather than to make accusations and protect his/her existing assumptions. If not, I agree: any engagement with jmorpuss is a waste of time. -
Albatross at 04:24 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Tom @22, Great post. Thank you, it makes the efforts to obfuscate and misinform @21 look rather pathetic. -
Albatross at 03:36 AM on 16 November 2011Richard Milne separates skepticism from denial
Monkeyorchid @64, I do not think any reasoned and grounded individual should care or pay attention to what an ideologically (and anger) driven Montford and his followers might think/believe. He is just feeding them fodder to keep them all worked up and angry. Pretty sad that this is what they have to resort to in lieu of science. But thanks for the notification. -
monkeyorchid at 03:29 AM on 16 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
Good to see that the poopdreck list has been thoroughly trashed! Sadly "the most desperate" (comment 48) covers pretty much every denier on the planet... -
wingding at 03:09 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
I think the article should mention that "skeptics" were making similar claims about the previous "pause" in 2008. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:38 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
23, apiratelooksat50, Check your e-mail. -
Tom Curtis at 01:38 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
victull @24, the inverse correlation between the Southern Oscillation Index (an index of the ENSO oscillation) and detrended GMST is evident not only in 1998 and 2010, but also during the La Nina's of the period 1999-2001, and 2008. It is also evident during the El Nino's from 2002-2007. They only place it seems significantly depressed is during the early 1990's, ie, when the global energy budget was dominated by Mount Pinatubo. What is clear from the chart is that there is (at least) one other source of natural variability in detrended sea level of similar magnitude to the effect of ENSO events of ordinary magnitude. As to past data, I have not particularly searched, and am not sure the error in estimates from tide gauges are sufficiently small to make effects of that size meaningfully detectable. Finally, a simpler explanation of the "step change" between Jason and Topex is the concurrent "step change" in ENSO states. Or is that due to calibration error too? -
John Hartz at 01:25 AM on 16 November 2011How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change
@Pirate #24: Reread my post #22. You're smart enough to figure it out on your own. -
Tom Curtis at 01:25 AM on 16 November 2011It's waste heat
jmorpus @102: 1) You claim that:" I do see and have a basic understanding of the green house effect and in NO way am I dissputing the theory"
but in an earlier post on another thread (now deleted) your wrote:"You state in your last paragraph that CO2 is the primary driver for global warming Well I cant see it as the main driver it is only reacting to the radio waves that are ejected from the sun and man has been pumping man made noise into the atmosphere for more then a centuary When you guys start looking down the radiated electromagnetic path then I'LL start taking you seriously."
Ergo, your claim to have not disputed the theory of the greenhouse effect is proven false; as also is your claim to understand it. 2) I make no apology if I have misunderstood your theory, because to the extent that I have it is because you have refused to elaborate it. Instead you have merely posted unexplained links and made cryptic comments without further elaboration. The former is in clear contravention of the comments policy which states:"No link or pic only. Links to useful resources are welcome (see HTML tips below). However, comments containing only a link will be deleted. At least provide a short summary of the content of the webpage to facilitate discussion (and show you understand the page you're linking to). Similarly, images are very welcome as they can be very useful in explaining the science. But comments with pictures in isolation without explanation will be deleted."
(My emphasis) That has been explained to you several times, but still you persist, with your most recent post being the most recent example. What is more, failing to elaborate your theory is a doubly obnoxious behaviour. Obnoxious because it wastes the time of anybody who attempts an honest discussion with you. Obnoxious also because it constitutes a cowardly method of protecting your theory from criticism. Left to your devises you can always claim we have misunderstood your theory whenever the rebutal destroys what that theory appears to have been. Given my very low opinion of people who resort to such tactics (-snip-), unless your next response is a clear and direct statement of your theory, I would suggest moderators simply bar you from polite company, as you would clearly not belong in it. 3) Finally, having read your link, I can again report that it has no relevance to any theory that can be reasonably comported of the few vague hints you have deigned to let out. If you disagree, quote the relevant passages, and explain why they are relevant to your theory. 4) Given that past evidence indicates that you will not explain your theory, I will simply observe that the connection between the effects of cosmic rays and radio waves that you believe to be important in climatology is not so. Cosmic rays form precursors to cloud condensation nuclei because they ionize atoms with which they collide. In contrast, microwaves and radiowaves are not ionizing radiation. Therefore they can have no meteorological effect other than through transfer of energy, and as we know the energy they transfer is to slight to be of consequence.Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
victull at 01:13 AM on 16 November 2011Hiding the Incline in Sea Level
Tom Curtis @ 22 The SOI and Detrended GMSL only appear to show strong opposite correlations in the most extreme cases - the 97-98 El Nino and the 2010-11 La Nina. Do you have any data on past extreme ENSO events showing such negative correlations? Also the linear trend line of Topex and Jason readings appear to be more of two distinct trends. Jason 1 and 2 seem to be on a lower trend line of about 2mm/year with a step between the two trends. This could be explained by calibration error between the satellites. -
citizenschallenge at 01:03 AM on 16 November 2011Bigger, Badder Atlantic Hurricanes In the 21st Century
Well heck I know how to look up some of this stuff: Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes Morris A. Bender, Thomas R. Knutson, Robert E. Tuleya, Joseph J. Sirutis, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Stephen T. Garner, Isaac M. Held Science, 22 January 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5964, pp. 454 - 458 DOI: 10.1126/science.1180568 ================== Bender (2010) - More intense Atlantic Hurricanes in the 21st century An Overview of Current Research Results 1. Has Global Warming Affected Atlantic Hurricane Activity? Thomas R. Knutson Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised August 26, 2011 A. Summary Statement "Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following: Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity? What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models? In this review, I address these questions in the context of published research findings. I will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions." ================== Global warming and United States landfalling hurricanes Chunzai Wang and Sang-Ki Lee GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L02708, doi:10.1029/2007GL032396, 2008
Prev 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 Next
