Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 Next
Comments 71401 to 71450:
-
Albatross at 05:25 AM on 30 October 2011SkS Weekly Digest #20
And the disingenuousness, defamatory comments and misinformation at WUWT continue, and this time Dr. Roger Pielke Senior is implicated, only days after lecturing and berating others on their snarky "tone". This is absolutely disgraceful and unacceptable behaviour. "Friday Funny – bonus Posted on October 28, 2011 by Anthony Watts Josh caricatures “team aerosols” thanks to Dr. Roger Pielke’s compilation of responses to this question: ‘Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?” Excuses, excuses."
The timing of this is curious, as it appears the day after Pielke posted this quote mining exercise on his blog, and his post at WUWT (together with his cherry picked graph) appeared the very same day. Pielke is evidently very close to Watts, in fact it seems that they are conspiring together to defame climate scientists and trying to undermine their credibility. And Pielke has the audacity and gall to tone troll and lecture others on "tone" and attitude. This is not sticking to the science Dr. Pielke, this is rhetoric and hyperbole, and very personal stuff at that.
The above cartoon is reprehensible and constitutes a defamatory and juvenile attack on some of the world's leading climate scientists. Really, is this all WUWT have in their arsenal now, juvenile and mocking cartoons? In other words, they have nothing but innuendo and snark.
Now here is something interesting. On his blog Pielke Senior has the title "Candid comments from climate scientist"s, when he posts at WUWT this morphs to "Climate scientists and their excuses". This is a demonstrably false statement and gross mischaracterization of their positions. Also, on the one hand Pielke is suggesting they are being candid, while on the other hand he is saying that they are making excuses, the insinuation being that they are being dishonest and/or hiding something. That is defamatory, and in some countries is considered libel.
I do not, however, expect Dr. Pielke him to cede that or correct the misleading title at WUWT. Instead he seems to be egging on the peanut gallery. What Pielke and Anthony characterize as "excuses" are actually diligent and curious climate scientists trying to improve our understanding of the climate system and advance the science. Nit picking, distorting, mocking, defaming and misrepresenting does not achieve those goals in the least.
I wonder if Dr. Pielke will have the honor and integrity to demand that his friend and colleague Anthony Watts to pull the cartoon? We watch with interest, but without holding our breath.
-
dhogaza at 04:35 AM on 30 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
michael sweet: "Dr Pielke many times asserted that OHC should be the metric whereby AGW was measured. On the other hand, he claims that the deep ocean has not been accurately measured. How can these two statements be reconciled? If we do not know how much heat is going into the deep ocean, OHC cannot be used as the primary guage of AGW." The two statements can be easily reconciled if one's goal is to use one's influence to argue that uncertainty means we should delay action. Once scientists get a good handle on OHC trends he'll think of something else, I'm sure. -
John Hartz at 03:54 AM on 30 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
On the same day that Dana posted his excellent essay, Zachary Shahan over at PlanetSave posted, "Yes, Global Warming is Real AND Caused by Humans." This is not the first time that Dana and Zachary have posted parallel articles almost simultaneously. Are they channeling each other? To access Zachary's informative article, click here. -
John Russell at 03:37 AM on 30 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
@Ian Forrester writes: "There is still one AGW denier who is denying that temperatures have risen since 1940. In a recent comment to a Nature editorial Fred Singer claims:"But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean..."
Isn't that a bit like claiming that 'unlike everything within the greenhouse, the glass has shown no warming trend'? -
Tom Smerling at 03:36 AM on 30 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
I absolutely love Peter Sinclair's work -- his careful research, editing, entertaining presentation and even tone so often "strike a blow below the waterline" at skeptical arguments. Yet I have to weigh in on the side of those arguing that it's better to leave out snarky references to the "Junior Woodchuck Society" etc. Climate Crocks are too good to squander solely on entertaining the already-converted. And the fun of name-calling is not worth the price of alienating partially-open-minded skeptics (yes, there still are some) out there. -
PeterS at 02:42 AM on 30 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Dale @ 24: "Since BEST only used land data (30% of the surface) and also found 1/3 of all stations cooled, all they proved was that 20% of the planet's surface warmed. Is that reason for all your celebrations? ;)" Dale, do you believe in the ability of scientists to collective representative samples, or do you assert we need a temperature reading at every spot on the earth before making any conclusions? Is your medical doctor capable of taking a representative sample of your blood chemistry with a 5 ml vial? Or do you demand they drain every drop of your blood, when you get a blood test? -
John Russell at 02:37 AM on 30 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
@Sphaerica,8 Thanks. It's also an effective explanation for why it's no good looking at just a few years of temperature records to claim warming has stopped. You need to record at least 30 years -- or in the case of the analogy, 30 waves -- to show a meaningful trend. If you want to take the analogy even further: by cherry-picking a series of waves between a high one and a subsequent lower one, you could even deny that the tide is coming in. And even, if you're so minded, maybe start a website to undermine the efforts of the 'tide-ists'? -
DrTsk at 01:59 AM on 30 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
I think that we should stop completely responding to any of their comments. Complete and utter shutdown of communication. As Mark(37) said, just continue the onslaught of good data and superb analysis. Similar to the flat earthers, data will soon change the tide. My only worry (and source of my immense frustration) is that the tide might change way to late on its own. -
muoncounter at 01:58 AM on 30 October 2011Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
Bernard J#137: "a world where stupidity trumps parody," Nah, parody always wins. Or is at least more entertaining. The relevant cherrypick is the interval from 2002 forward.-- source A time period starting with an anomalous warm (2002) and ending on an anomalous cool (winter 2010) shows warming 'on hiatus'? Shazbot! Of course, for parody to be effective, there must be a point of irony: Here, the BEST data do not include the summers 2010 - 2011, which (if memory serves) were quite warm. The August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F)—the second warmest August on record, behind 1998.
-
adelady at 01:18 AM on 30 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
I also like the analogy of stairs. Anyone can walk straight up the steps without hesitation. But plenty of people will hesitate or pause for no particular reason. Tourists might spend considerable time getting the best possible photo angle of a building or a fountain in the area on their relaxed walk up to another attrction. Children will fool about or fuss or choose to take a few steps back every now and again for no reason any observer can discern. And then there's Fred Astaire. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:09 AM on 30 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
7, John, That's awesome. It is a perfect analogy, which fits superbly with virtually everyone's personal experience. I'll have to remember it. -
John Russell at 22:26 PM on 29 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
@nigelj writes: "Any glance at a long term trend shows it hasn't stopped as a long term process, but naive members of the public don't get it." The explanation I always use when I hear the uninformed saying such things is to ask them if they've ever stood on a beach and watched the tide coming in. The long-term trend (the water level steadily rising) is hidden behind short-term variability (the size of waves washing up the beach). They cannot argue against this analogy and it usually makes them think. -
nigelj at 18:59 PM on 29 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
One of the most powerfull and frustrating sceptical arguments is global warming stopped or slowed after 1998 or whatever. For example it appears that the oceans also stopped heating from about 1997-2002. Any glance at a long term trend shows it hasnt stopped as a long term process, but naive members of the public dont get it. Until their is a compelling reason for slow or cooling periods, sceptical but naieve members of the general public will interpret "stopped" as in global warming is finished, or the theory is flawed. Thats the impression I get listening to people. The climate science community needs much better explanations of flat or cooling periods if it wants to convince people. Obviously there are reasons that have not yet been adequately adressed or discovered. Vague waffle about sun spot cycles wont work. There must be precise reasons. -
MA Rodger at 18:50 PM on 29 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
Chriskoz @4 Re your closing comment - Note that one solar system orbit was one of the pointers to the existance of relativity. Mercury's orbit misbehaves in a neutonian universe. -
chriskoz at 18:10 PM on 29 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
Dr Pielke clearly concentrates (read cherry-picks) much on the details forgetting how his big picture looks like. I guess most of leading 'skeptics' are like that: analyse miniscule data (sometimes making errors in the process) and even if not ignorants themselves, they do not seem to realise their methods and statements feed the ignorance of the mob: "it's not that bad, science is not settled, look what Pielke is saying: 'global warming stopped!', blah, blah blah" So, the best way to counteract Pielke's bad influence is to constantly remind the large audience about the big picture that he is missing/ignoring: - warming may have slowed but it's inapropriate to claim it 'stopped' when you don't have statistical test to prove it; look at large timescale, as reasonable people do in case of such noisy data. - it's pointless to argue what the exact percentage of anthropogenic forcing is, when we proved multiple times latest CO2 increase is due to humans and it's the main driver. Also the increase of next GHG: CH4 is due to humans. And the next one: CFC is all human poison, it never existed in the entire 4by geo-history, until last century! - it's pointless to 'discover' that ocean warming has 'stopped', when the result of warming oceans, especially arctic ocean, is dangerus ice shelf melt. - it's pointless to argue the miniscule details of climate science when what we know is more than enough to understand the main drivers and predict climate future. By analogy, we don't need to understand the teory or relativity to predict the astronomical events within the context of say, solar system: old Newtonian law of gravity is enough and beautifully simple. -
Mark Harrigan at 15:50 PM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
I think we need to accept that the very strong mental imperative to avoid cognitive dissonance means that those who deny AGW (and I've had my share of "vigorous" arguments with them on WUWT and other places) will NEVER accept any evidence that challenges their beliefs. All we can do is continue to put forward the evidence as calmly as we can (I confess I've been guilty sometimes of being a little too passionate in the face of egregous misrepresentations and outright ad-hom insults) so that those who are genuinely sceptical and open minded and want to learn can be pursuaded by the truth. This article by Dana is an excellent example of that approach :) -
Bernard J. at 15:41 PM on 29 October 2011Continued Lower Atmosphere Warming
In a world where stupidity trumps parody, I might as well pre-empt the inevitable bastardisation of the WfT option for the BEST [sic] data... Et voilà!
(-snip-)Richard Muller's data show that there has been no warming since 1970; only a series of stable temperature periods, until 2005, since which there has been precipitous cooling. (-snip-).
You saw it first on Skeptical Science.
Moderator Response:[DB] Thanks for the pre-empt. Apologies, but somewhere a line was crossed; too-personal commentary snipped.
-
michael sweet at 14:39 PM on 29 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
Dr Pielke many times asserted that OHC should be the metric whereby AGW was measured. On the other hand, he claims that the deep ocean has not been accurately measured. How can these two statements be reconciled? If we do not know how much heat is going into the deep ocean, OHC cannot be used as the primary guage of AGW. I was deeply dissapointed by Dr. Pielke's refusal to respond to direct questions. His recent post at WUWT also contradicts points he made here. -
Bernard J. at 13:57 PM on 29 October 2011OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Doug. I completely concur with your definition of 'acidification', and I put essentially the same definition to denialists when I ask them if an increase in the concentration of acid species is in fact acidification. I emphasised my previous points simply to attempt to add to the over-all effort to stopper any rat-holes through which these acidification deniers might bolt. Frustratingly there are folk on Watts' Magnificent Monument to Ignorance who are this very week going back to square one and using the "not acidifying, just less alkalinity" canard again, and many other laughable notions as well, even after they've been directed to these pages on Skeptical Science. Indeed, there are some who have (apparently) read these posts, and claim them to be nonsense, though they never actually produce any science that explains why... I guess it just goes to show that no matter in how many ways one tries to draw simple outlines for the ignorant, if they refuse to open their eyes they’re never going to get the picture... -
Jeffrey Davis at 12:52 PM on 29 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
Why is someone like Pielke of any interest at all? How many "fudges" is someone allowed before they're hooted off the stage? -
JCH at 12:51 PM on 29 October 2011A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
I see a lot of people claiming Scenario A is the one. What would be very helpful is if you would do a similar table on concentrations under A, and broader discussion of NET greenhouse gas forcings to date, which I believe is why Scenario A is not the one. -
Bob Lacatena at 12:38 PM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
20, Charlie A, The figure appears to come from Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to global warming. Part II: sensitivity of permafrost carbon stock to global warming. Tellus 60B: 265–275. (Khvorostyanov DV, Ciais P, Krinner G, Zimov SA, Corradis Ch, Guggenberger G 2008). Unfortunately, I don't have access to the paper to confirm. It didn't seem all that hard to find, though. I'm not sure what the problem is here. -
WheelsOC at 10:27 AM on 29 October 2011Pielke Sr. and SkS Dialogue Final Summary
I wish Dr. Pielke Snr. allowed comments on his post so that I could ask him exactly what is his point in trying to claim that lower troposphere warming "stopped" an insignificantly short period of time ago. -
Charlie A at 09:08 AM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
#19 DSL says "This quibbling with WWF crud is goofy when there's a very large collection of existing research on the subject." Is it "goofy" to try and determine whether what SkS portrays as "actual" 20th century near-surface permafrost area is indeed based upon actual observations? Perhaps in that very large collection of existing research on permafrost there is a time series for near-surface permafrost area north of 45N, but I have not yet been able to find such a time series or graph. If anyone knows of such data, it would be helpful to compare simulations and observations. Only by following the trail back from UNEP to WWF to Lawrence et al 2008 was I able to determine that the "actual" graph is most likely the result of cascaded simulations. My current understanding of the method used to generate the data for Figure 2 is: a) Some estimated forcings for 1870 were used repeatedly to spin up a coupled climate model. b) Estimated forcings for the next 30 years were used to move the coupled model forward to 1900. c) The year 1900 output for one particular model run was then used repeatedly for 200 or 400 years to initialize a land model. d) After this initialization of the land model to one particular state the output of one particular run of a coupled model was used to generate forcings such as precipitation, air temperature, and specific humidity for the period after 1900. e) This new set of simulated forcings were then used to drive the initialized land model. The output from the cascaded series of models (which do not even attempt to use observed 20th century temperatures and precipitation) are what are called "actual" by this SkS article. My initial interest was caught by the strange variations in the "actual" near-surface permafrost graph of Figure 2 in the early 20th century, and my initial comment, #5, was about this oddity. This has become a moot point since it has become clear that the data is not what the SkS article claims it is -- "actual".Response:[DB] "Is it "goofy" to try and determine whether what SkS portrays as "actual" 20th century near-surface permafrost area is indeed based upon actual observations?"
You have been told that verification is being sought. Your continued intransigence in not patiently awaiting a reply speaks volumes.
"Only by following the trail back from UNEP to WWF to Lawrence et al 2008 was I able to determine that the "actual" graph is most likely the result of cascaded simulations."
"Likely"? "able to determine"? You speak as if this was some mythic revelation revealed only to you. Everything you surmise after this is mere supposition by you.
Again, confirmation is being sought. Patience is counseled.
"This has become a moot point since it has become clear that the data is not what the SkS article claims it is -- "actual"."
Now you pass from tedious through tepid to inflammatory. Do not presume malfeasance when mere human error is far more likely. And said error is not yet revealed to be on the part of SkS.
Further intimations of impropriety will be deleted outright.
-
Rob Painting at 07:56 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave 123 - the ocean you "see" is the Green Ocean -
Rob Painting at 07:51 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Sphaerica - thanks. What's with the "lowest Amazon river levels ever recorded" skeptics? Is it because it's a Greenpeace photo? Anyway see: The drought of 2010 in the context of historical droughts in the Amazon region - Marengo (2011). One of the papers I'll cover in future posts. -
DSL at 07:38 AM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
Indeed, Philippe. Google scholar lists 3760 articles published since 2009 when queried for "permafrost" and "global warming." Charlie, develop a research-based position on permafrost and permafrost melt simulation, and then bring it. In addition to Philippe's suggestions, you might look at the work of Oleg Anisimov and others who tend to focus on Asian permafrost. This quibbling with WWF crud is goofy when there's a very large collection of existing research on the subject. It suggests ad hominem: because one is associated with the WWF, one is immediately uselessly biased. -
itscoldoutside at 07:35 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
That @Hyperactive cites a UToronto paper is apt. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1070377--rolling-with-the-climate-change-punches#comments (Unfortunately, it isn't possible to cite posts within the thread, and the interface is terrible - why I didn't bother. The exchange is fairly predictable). -
muoncounter at 07:23 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
PhilMorris#35: If by 'hero,' you mean villain. -
michael sweet at 07:22 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave, In the desert there is a shortage of water so the trees grow near the water. In the rain forest there is plenty of water so trees grow everywhere. The river washes away the trees in the river bed, so when the river is low there is bare sand next to the river. Think it through before you suggest there is a problem with the picture. -
John Hartz at 07:11 AM on 29 October 2011Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
Another excellent video, “Old ice becoming rare in the Arctic” has been posted on the NOAA website. To access it, click here. -
John Hartz at 06:58 AM on 29 October 2011The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
Suggested reading: “Deep Oceans May Mask Global Warming for Years at a Time: Computer simulations of global climate lead to new conclusions,” National Science Foundation, Sep 13, 2011 To access this article, click here. -
PhilMorris at 06:56 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Fred Singer - one of the 'heros' in the book Merchants of Doubt. A good read and gives some insight of his ilk and why they doubt real - opps - peer reviewed science -
scaddenp at 06:53 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Dale, do you know why people are not concerned about the sea temperatures? -
Albatross at 06:47 AM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
Hans, "If this was not intended as a scientific review of the permafrost issue, then please forgive my rantings." I'm sorry you feel my firm response to Charlie is over the line-- perhaps you are not aware of his posting history here at SkS. Philippe hits the nail on the head with his assessment. I would not assume that that the above challenges are necessarily sincere and have scientific integrity in mind. Charlie is very clearly trying awfully hard to figure out a way to dismiss or cast doubt on the findings presented here. As I stated above, I am confident that the figure in question was indeed based on a peer-reviewed paper by respected scientists specializing in permafrost modelling (i.e., Dr. Lawrence and his colleagues). Charlie has been told that three times now, and I do not see how you failed to notice that when reading my post @ 15 that you took offense to. Please follow the link provided by Daniel above, look at their figure 5, specifically the trace for SOILCARB_DS125 and compare that with Figure 2 above. The fact that WWF and UNEP chose to use those peer-reviewed data/findings by Lawrence et al. (2008) is not relevant (ands since when is it a crime for WWF to reproduce scientific information?), what is relevant is that the graphic in question is in all likelihood based on a peer-reviewed scientific paper. So the post is still very much a scientific review as evidenced by the scientific citations included therein. Agnostic has contacted UNEP and we are waiting for them to get back to us. So before judging me and my response, please first wait until we have confirmation from UNEP. If the graphic is indeed based on the Figure 5 from Lawrence et al. (2008) (which will be evident if you make the comparison as suggested) will you agree that the argument is moot? -
Icarus at 06:35 AM on 29 October 2011Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
Thanks for the article Peter. Do you have an opinion on the magnitude of positive feedback entailed in having an essentially ice-free Arctic Ocean? Presumably as time goes on we will see more energy going into raising the temperature of the water rather than melting ice, and albedo will be reduced for longer and longer periods of the year (I'm assuming that for a while at least, the ice will return each autumn). -
John Hartz at 06:33 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
itscoldoutside: How about providing us with a link to the comment thread you are referencing. -
wingding at 06:11 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
They are making "we never denied the earth was warming" statements not because that is true, but because they don't want to admit they were wrong. The best example of what they had been saying about the global temperature record is in the PDF "SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION" published in 2010 by the SPPI, authored by Watt's and D'Aleo: "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century" What BEST has done is not simply show there was warming, warming which "skeptics" doubted had happened, but it showed the pattern, timing and magnitude of warming was similar to what GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 already had demonstrated. In short it simply told us what we already knew - the false skeptic doubt was false doubt. They won't stop. They have only been forced to admit the planet has warmed temporarily as their response to being called out. Even now they are making the same old tired claims. Post #24 is a great example of this continuing. See if "skeptics" knew the world had warmed why is post #24 implying that maybe it hasn't. It was never about facts for them, or else they would have at least been consistent. They simultaneously cite the little ice age as a fact and cry outrage at the prospect of it being "removed", even as the muse that maybe the world hasn't warmed significantly since..the little ice age. Both views are convenient to them, so it doesn't matter that they are completely inconsistent. They aren't trying to be consistent. They are trying to sow doubt and when they have to they will try to cover their tracks. I think SkepticalScience should add a new skeptic claim for "skeptics never doubted the earth had warmed..." -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:08 AM on 29 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
I do not totally agree with you Hans. First, because the aggressivity and ruthlessness of the so-called skeptics mandate a tone that's very firm. The time for being nice is over. From FOIA abuse to hacking to relentless accusations of fraud, to abuse of judicial powers, to lies and distortions, the war is on and it's very real. The source, whether original or intermediate, of the graph matters less than the data quality itself. I doubt that WWF came up with that graph, since there is so much ongoing study of the permafrost loss. Even if they did and the data are accurate and reviewed, then it is acceptable. It is a common pet peeve at SkS that data used by skeptics are presented out of context or distorted to suggest the opposite of what they actually show. Where the data come from is not nearly as much of a concern than where a certain interpretation will come from, as the data are often fine by themselves. I will add that many have presented here stuff as poor as opinion pieces from think tanks and equated their value with real factual information. The loss of permafrost and its relation to climate change in the Arctic is so far beyon doubt that quibbling about data sources is just that. I guess it is flattering in a way. SkS is being scrutinized for adherence to the strictest standards, which means that it has become a reference influential enough that skeptics will try to discredit it by all possible means. Meanwhile of course the "skeptic" outlets go on merrily misleading their audiences with the usual outrageous lies and distortions. Oh well. Perhaps Agnostic yielded to the convenience of graphs that showed most of the information in an at-a-glance format. Nonetheless, if we really want to consider the question of permafrost loss and climate change, there is so much info available: Interesting take here on a regional influence of snow cover: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/permafrost-loss-in-peatlands-of-northern-quebec-1957-2003 Model results here: http://www.mendeley.com/research/permafrost-zonation-and-climate-change-in-the-northern-hemisphere-results-from-transient-general-circulation-models/ Vladimir Romanovsky certainly is an expert in the matter, here is take at NOAA, with a wealth of further references: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/permafrost.htmlResponse:[DB] "Perhaps Agnostic yielded to the convenience of graphs that showed most of the information in an at-a-glance format."
Something that most authors do on a fairly regular basis - myself included.
A request for clarification has been sent.
-
Dave123 at 05:57 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Well, I did follow the link to greenpeace, but obviously I wasn't diligent enough -
Composer99 at 05:24 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
itscoldoutside: Assuming you have cut & pasted this fine commentary from a response to one of your own comments, I was amused to see your interlocutor's comment "Except, anyone who takes meteorology knows, the violence of a storm is based on the temperature differences in weather fronts." I'm sure he or she was a professional or dedicated hobbyist. :) -
Bob Lacatena at 05:20 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave123, And here. I particularly like the picture of the boat resting on the dried up river bed. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:18 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave123, Look at the pictures here. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:12 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Dave123, If you follow the link to the Greenpeace page, you find that's a picture of the Rio Negro during its lowest ever recorded level. If you look at the Rio Negro, you find it's in the very heart of the Amazon (see map below). As such, the "ocean" you see in the distance is tropical forest.
-
itscoldoutside at 05:09 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
@Hyperactive, NP. BTW, They were asked to post their response here. They declined; instead posting that rant (which even I can even see is wrong at so many levels); thought you might all appreciate the reaction this site is getting :-) And, having a table of standard arguments makes things much easier; appreciated. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 04:52 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
Ah, sorry I got a bit confused by your post. -
itscoldoutside at 04:35 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
@Hyperactive A response [quoted verbatim, hence the italics and caps, I encountered] to this page being cited; [as you can see they are] not a happy camper. The same author is citing CO2science as a "scientific" resource .... -
Bob Lacatena at 04:03 AM on 29 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
31, Sasquatch, Visit this page and play with the options for any selected temperature record (in particular "mean" and "linear trend"). You'll probably want to look at a mean with a # of samples of 240 months (i.e. 10 years). Example -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 04:00 AM on 29 October 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
itscoldoutside, "The evidence is clear, there is NO evidence of weather extremes changing." Really? Here is an interesting article that disagrees with your statement. Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. And another article, this time focussed on England and Wales. The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases ourmodel results indicate that twentieth century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%. -
Dave123 at 03:45 AM on 29 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
For what it's worth, my take on that picture is that the blue patch in the upper left is ocean. This then would be is a beach/delta area, and for all I know the white stuff is sand. This picture is also the opposite of what I'd expect, in the sense that in the American desert, vegtation clusters around a river, while at a distance the ground is bare. This is in no way a criticism of objective efforts to track Amazon drought or the reality of it....I'm just wondering about the picture itself.
Prev 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 Next
