Recent Comments

Prev  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  Next

Comments 90951 to 91000:

90951. Rob Painting at 21:26 PM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       CharlieA @ 23 - "there is nothing in the way of proof that climate predictions have any accuracy or skill.'' Doesn't look too shabby to me.
90952. HumanityRules at 21:05 PM on 26 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       Any thoughts on the spencer et al critique of the Fu work? http://mtp.mjmahoney.net/www/notes/instrument/i1520-0426-23-3-417.pdf
90953. Peter Hogarth at 20:56 PM on 26 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       Glenn, to expand on what scaddenp has mentioned, Cloa and other readers may be interested in comparing the satellite MSU data with various global radiosonde (weather balloon) datasets for corresponding atmospheric pressure levels/altitudes, as the radiosonde data are generated from direct temperature measurements. The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) team have generously done the work of creating and updating charts comparing RSS and UAH MSU data with radiosonde datasets such as HadAT (the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre Radiosonde data set) as in this chart covering most of the globe except the polar regions. There are many more plots available for the various radiosonde data sets and for comparisons at different latitude bands, including the tropics from +30 degrees to -30 degrees. It’s a great resource. There page scaddenp links to is excellent and worth repeating here as it covers data validation well.
90954. HumanityRules at 20:51 PM on 26 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       Glenn Tamblyn BTW thanks for the article, very informative.
90955. HumanityRules at 20:50 PM on 26 March 2011
       Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
       10 Glenn Tamblyn "That John Christy, on of the authorts of this paper is one of the principles behind the UAH data set doesn't enter into this?" Show me a scientist who doesn't think his work is a cut above the rest?
90956. wild monkeys at 20:31 PM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       It's like saying you can't predict that the long term average of dice rolls will be 3.5 because you can't predict the next roll.
90957. Gilles at 20:08 PM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       "There is no one single thing that correlates with the growth of wealth, but I can assure you that there are a number of other things which correlate better than either FF consumption or temperature increase" For temperatures, I agree of course. For FF consumption, show me one. ". Between coal & oil, there *is* sufficient CO2 emissions to be unlocked to make the SRES scenarios very realistic " I disagree : SRES scenarios are exactly as unrealistic for gas and coal than for oil. It's just that you didn't realize it yet, because peak oil is close and peak gas and coal a little bit more remote - but the methodology was the same for oil and for other FF : basically bogus. . SRES scenarios are just a set of storylines, and contain no scientifically assessed laws concerning energy and economy. You could have asked a 10 years old child to draw a series of bell-shaped lines with different colored pens - you would have got pretty much the same result without paying any "expert", in 5 minutes - science begins when we know how to disprove stupid hypothesis and keep the good ones - there is obviously nothing like that in the set of SRES scenarios.
90958. Marcus at 19:34 PM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       "concerning oil : I'm the first to say that we're close to peak oil, and that's why SRES scenarios are mostly unrealistic. What's your point ?" Except that oil isn't the only thing we have to worry about. Between coal & oil, there *is* sufficient CO2 emissions to be unlocked to make the SRES scenarios very realistic &-if anything-somewhat optimistic. Of course, unlike yourself, I'd rather direct our society *away* from this destructive path rather than test out the strength of the these scenarios. Seriously, I really don't know why you're wasting so much of our time with these repetitive, fact free assertions of yours.
90959. Marcus at 19:31 PM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Marcus#77 : I already answered your questions several times : first I never stated that there was a single coefficient between GDP and energy or FF consumption. Well, just as predicted, you claim that this isn't what you've been saying, when clearly it *is* what you've been saying *all* along. Try to make up your mind Gilles. As to the correlation between temperature & wealth-well that's an even *more* bogus correlation than the one you claim exists between FF consumption & wealth. There is no one single thing that correlates with the growth of wealth, but I can assure you that there are a number of other things which correlate better than either FF consumption or temperature increase-yet still this is a fantasy that you're determined to propagate, no matter how little evidence you have to back your claims.
90960. L.J. Ryan at 19:09 PM on 26 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       KR 804 I "The climate, on the other hand, is driven by a band-limited solar input which does not match the thermal emissive spectra, is not greatly affected by greenhouse gases, and hence represents a fixed input, not a match to the thermal spectra at all." To further insight lets solve stepwise. The earth SURFACE has a very high emissivity (~.96)...so solar input to the earth SURFACE of 240 W/m^2 equates to~255K. Q1)Do you agree? Solar IR re-radiation via the earth SURFACE equates to ~ 240 W/m^2 emitted at 255K...this represents the temp maximum via solar radiation. Before the apoplectic visceral post, first consider the following. One litter of gasoline contains 34.8 MJ. No matter how well the losses are retarded or how slow/fast those Joules are consumed, the max possible energy/litter is as defined. Q2)Do you agree? Q3)By "thermal spectra" do you mean "atmospheric forcing"?
90961. WheelsOC at 19:07 PM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       gallopingcamel missed the point of the pool analogy. We can project the average height of the water in the pool with a few simple variables for rate of fill, volume, etc., but we cannot predict the peak of any single wave or trough made by the splash when somebody jumps in. We can do that because predicting local, short-term weather and global average climate over long periods are two very different processes. Climate models are NOT a bunch of weather predictions glued together. Anybody trying to use this kind of argument is deeply confused on the subject. Charlie A, Skepticalscience has another post dealing with climate models and their accuracy.
       Moderator Response: [mc] fixed link tags
90962. Charlie A at 18:39 PM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       The article convincingly argues that skill of climate predictions can be different than skill of weather predictions. It does not say anything about any actual comparisons of climate forecasts to actual outcomes. In other words, although it is clear that climate prediction is not the same as weather prediction, there is nothing in the way of proof that climate predictions have any accuracy or skill.
90963. Gilles at 18:28 PM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       concerning oil : I'm the first to say that we're close to peak oil, and that's why SRES scenarios are mostly unrealistic. What's your point ?
90964. Marcus at 18:28 PM on 26 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       "Wind farms need to be covered by base load reserve for the situations where light or no winds occur over a wide area. Without base load coverage - storage systems would need to cover at least a couple of day's supply to meet these weather events." ....and again, Ken, you deliberately *ignore* the existence of storage technologies more than capable of meeting 2-3 days of *zero* wind or sun. Of course the odds of the two things being *totally* absent for that length of time are incredibly slim. Also, given the large numbers of landfill & sewerage treatment plants across the Country, I'm certain that sufficient bio-gas power stations could be established to provide *emergency* base-load in those very, very rare instances when neither Wind, solar or stored power will suffice....and that's even before we consider run-of-river hydro, large-scale hydro-power & tidal stream power. Face it Ken, Coal is yesterday's news, & its only dinosaurs who desperately seek for excuses to abandon it.
90965. Gilles at 18:27 PM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Marcus#77 : I already answered your questions several times : first I never stated that there was a single coefficient between GDP and energy or FF consumption : not more than a single coefficient between temperature and anything sensible concerning human wealth. with your logics, I could also ask : if world increase of temperature were that dangerous for mankind, how do you explain that wealth has increased by several tens during the XXth century whereas temperature have also increased ? the coefficient is not constant because a number of factors are variable : geographic, historic, improvement of techniques... again, nothing constant, just as the precise link between temperature and anything else. This does not mean that we could go to zero. look again gapminder and track the history of England , US , and China for instance; of course trajectories were not the same, not monotonous, and slopes were varying - however you cannot deny that there is a clear correlation !
90966. Marcus at 18:24 PM on 26 March 2011
       Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
       Ken, are you *really* trying to claim that the mining industry doesn't receive the lions share of the diesel fuel rebate, which is paid for by the tax-payer? I wonder how much more expensive coal would be if the cost of mining & transporting the stuff fell 100% on the shoulders of the companies doing the mining. Rail & Port infrastructure were also built & maintained at tax-payers expense-another bill the coal mining industry doesn't have to foot. So yes, even in the export industry, the cheapness of the product relies at least in part on the subsidies enjoyed by the industry-though sheer volume also plays its part. Of course, as a commodity industry, Australia receives much less per tonne than...say, if it were to ship wind turbines or PV cells instead. Of course, Australia has been very good, this last 25 years, at getting itself into the red in terms of balance of trade. That's what comes of sending raw goods offshore for bargain basement prices, then buying finished goods back at 3-4 times what we got for the original raw materials.
90967. Marcus at 18:15 PM on 26 March 2011
       The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
       Here's another one for you-Ozone. In small quantities, at the top of the atmosphere, Ozone is vital for keeping out harmful levels of UV radiation-thus allowing life on Earth to flourish. Yet closer to the surface of the planet, it is an extremely harmful pollutant that can damage plants & the human respiratory tract, & contributes to photochemical smog. I'm sure there are loads of other examples of chemicals which-in the right place & quantities-are vital to us but which, in the wrong place or quantities, are extremely harmful.
90968. gallopingcamel at 17:01 PM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       I am prepared to concede that short term weather forecasts based on Doppler radar are impressively accurate. When they tell me a storm cell will arrive in my city in 35 minutes I take evasive action. As the time window expands, predictions become more and more fuzzy. When the forecast says that it will be raining six days from now I book my golf foursome with better than 50% confidence that the weather will be fine. When the BBC predicts that the next winter will be mild I (usually correctly) expect the forecasts to be wrong to an embarrassing degree. Likewise, when various university scholars predict how many hurricanes will hit Florida I realize that their guesses made using super-computers are no better than my guess based on waving a damp finger in the air. Predicting the temperature 100 years from now is much tougher than forecasting just a few months ahead. This post does say one thing that I believe is probably correct: "A change in temperature of 7 degrees Celsius (°C) from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's average temperature was 7ºC cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan!" Many of you seem to be in favor of reducing the average global temperature. Do you hate New York so much that you want to restore that ice sheet?
90969. SoundOff at 16:38 PM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Weather is like a single roll of a single die (with 1 to 6 dots per face). It’s very hard to predict the outcome, even with a model. Climate is like rolling a single die roll 1000 times. It’s quite easy to predict the average outcome using a simple model. The average of all those rolls will be 3.5 +/- 0.17. Future climate is predicted by averaging many runs of a model to eliminate noise or some inherent bias towards certain initial conditions. And sometimes averages of different models are used to further eliminate bias.
90970. scaddenp at 15:35 PM on 26 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       Sheesh, this is why I hate about political posts. "Comments" is now full of garbage about American politics with nothing whatever relevant to climate. Who cares who wrecked their economy - except more wrecking might improve climate. Surely there are other places for American political tribes to argue with each other?
90971. scaddenp at 15:30 PM on 26 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       I find this a little irrelevant but I am a little out of depth. To me the "its the ocean's" argument runs like this. "An ocean cycle is causing the warming" Okay, so where is the energy coming from. "Well out of the oceans of course" So if is warming is just cycle of ocean atmosphere energy exchange, then why is total OHC increasing? I thought is was supposed to lose energy to atmosphere. Someone with more knowledge of this can tell me what I am missing.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Good question. If it's the ocean (discussed here), then OHC anomaly should be net zero. Since it isn't (it's actually positive, as you point out), than the ocean is retaining energy/heat (because of the Earth's radiative imbalance), despite the continual loss of heat to the atmosphere and to the melting of Arctic ice (Patrick Lockerby just released his March Arctic Ice Update #2).

       See the links I just gave you for relevant discussion; a search on the term "It's the ocean" yields these results. Hope that helps.

90972. Rob Honeycutt at 14:30 PM on 26 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       PT.... Denominator?
90973. Albatross at 14:27 PM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       "The predictive limitations are the same for climate models as they are for weather models." Nonsense. I'll elaborate later, but if someone wishes to debunk this myth please go ahead.
90974. grypo at 14:19 PM on 26 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       Poptech says that there is no debate, and the premise for his argument is that the people making it are not libertarians. Another premise of that premise is that there are only one group of people who can call themselves libertarians and regard maximizing individual liberty as high value. Another premise must be that only libertarians that Poptech believes are libertarians can make arguments about libertarians, or else "no debate". This premise needs a lot of citation, not personal beliefs I'm afraid this argument PT is making fails on several levels.
90975. grypo at 13:51 PM on 26 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       "No effort was made in this post to actually get feedback from real libertarians to the proposition presented. Instead a poor attempt was made to distort libertarian principles to push an agenda." This thread is about the debate inside libertarianism and which actions are more appropriate to the first two libertarian principle according to the Libertarian Party preamble. I have presented at least two libertarians who disagree with the political mainstream thought within the movement, and say that those principles are not being adhered to. Jonathan Adler describes CATO's ideas as utilitarian, not libertarian, and says they disregard property rights. He has several suggestions both in that paper and on his website that he thinks would aim the movement in the proper direction. Tokyo says about CATO, "Cato and other vocal 'libertarian' organizations are in fact corporate fronts and won't bite the hand that feeds them, and thus avoid delving too deeply when they defend a 'free market' that is predominated by organizations that are not controlled by shareholders or communities and that are dedicated to extracting gains irregardless of costs that others may be forced to bear." So, do you agree with those libertarians, or do you agree with CATO's approach, and if so, please tell us how to satisfy libertarian principles. If there are ideas that have not been mentioned that you think should be, please detail those. Rothbard says, on page 153, "Air pollution, consisting of noxious odors, smoke, or other visible matter, definitely constitutes an invasive interference. These particles can be seen, smelled, or touched, and should therefore constitute invasion per se, except in the case of homesteaded air pollution easements. (Damages beyond the simple invasion would, of course, call for further liability.) Air pollution, however, of gases or articles that are invisible or undetectable by the senses should not constitute aggression per se, because being insensible they do not interfere with the owner's possession or use. They take on the status of invisible radio waves or radiation, unless they are proven to be harmful, and until this proof and the causal connection from aggressor to victim can be established beyond a reasonable doubt." The 2nd link downplays the effects of climate change and makes utilitarian arguments. These are covered in the post and are at the crux of Adler's arguments. Perhaps you can be more specific as to how those arguments made by Rothbard and Capella satisfy the most important libertarian principles.
90976. Rob Honeycutt at 13:17 PM on 26 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       I've run into a number of Libertarians who live in this same alternate universe where they believe if the administration had just done nothing everything would have been just fine. Problem is, everyone who knows anything at all about macroeconomics knows that utter foolishness. (Don't forget, Bernanke is a conservative... read his comments on Friedman.)
90977. Rob Honeycutt at 13:14 PM on 26 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       Poptech @ 82... There's not an economist in the world that would agree with you on any of the points you're making. Do you somehow think that Obama came into office and just started willy-nilly stimulating the economy for no apparent reason? Do you not remember the economy was in an all out free fall about the time of the election? What is it about Libertarianism that makes your memory so limited? Oh yeah... I almost forgot. We're in the Poptech alternate universe.
90978. Rob Honeycutt at 12:57 PM on 26 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       Poptech @ 79... That's right. It looks to me like Milton Friedman's ideas have not panned out so well over the past 30 years. @80... And the job losses are not a function of Obama's policies they were a direct result of the policies of the previous administration.
90979. johnd at 12:47 PM on 26 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       

       muoncounter at 12:40 PM, only for those unable to distinguish the difference between quality and quantity. You were saying......?

90980. muoncounter at 12:40 PM on 26 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       johnd #87: No, those links point to global temperature anomalies. Following the data trail, one finds oceans included in those global temperatures. More data are better, yes?
90981. johnd at 12:28 PM on 26 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       DB, on the comments page your responses are labeled as below. Moderator Response: [DB] You've made an extraordinary claim, were called on it and have since hastily waved hands while backtracking. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim with some actual analysis, not for others to disprove it. ......................... ( -Moderation complaints snipped- ). ( -Moderation complaints snipped- ). I have not backtracked at all. The assertion I made was very, very simple and straight forward. It is you in fact that is backtracking, having first producing irrelevant information in order to challenge my assertion, now having thrown your hands in the air and deciding it's impossible and trying to turn it around. I have nothing that disproves what is evident on the graph I supplied, sorry. End of story I think.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Again, you made an (unfounded) assertion simply unsupported by the science and data at hand, you were called on it and have done little since but wave your hands, backtrack and complain about it.

       It is up to the asserted to support claims with published peer-reviewed literature and/or analysis of their own which supports their contentions (this is called science). Which you have not done and complain about having to do. That is your choice and right.

       The readers of, and the participants in, this forum remain skeptical of your claims until then.

90982. johnd at 12:11 PM on 26 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       muoncounter at 11:33 AM, your "here and here" links do not lead to SST data.
90983. Marcus at 12:06 PM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Still, great to see Gilles tirelessly pushing on with his mythology regarding fossil fuel consumption & wealth. If it were that simple, then why does Saudi Arabia, with per Capita CO2 emissions of around 16t (as of 2007), have per Capita GDP of less than US$17,000? Why does the US, with its massive per capita output of CO2 (19t as of 2007) still have so many problems with poverty, homelessness, crime & mortality as compared to its European Counterparts-most of whom have significantly lower CO2 emissions per capita? Why is it that, even though 18th-19th centuries, England consumed massive amounts of coal, yet the average citizen of England was still living the same "hand-to-mouth" existence that they were back in the 16th & 17th centuries? You see, time & time & time again we can find loads of examples of where Gilles over-simplistic "Fossil fuels consumption=wealth" metric just doesn't equate well to the *real world*!
90984. Rob Honeycutt at 11:59 AM on 26 March 2011
       The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
       Poptech... The market doesn't seem to share your interpretation of "interventionist Keynesian policies." The Dow Jones average since Obama took office And isn't interesting how applying the same laissez faire policies in the US have translated into falling real incomes for Americans over the past couple of decades while enriching an ever thinning class of ultra wealthy.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Annotated graphic.
90985. johnd at 11:58 AM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       JMurphy at 10:51 AM, I don't think so, you can only wish. Most certainly, his forecasts would not be available on-line, it is a subscriber paid for service, tailored according to individual requirements and distributed directly to each subscriber, updated as necessary. He claims about 80% success rate, keep in mind his forecasts are very specific, in both outlook periods and specified coverage,not your usual BOM general forecasts of 50% chance of above and 50% chance of below outlooks produced for whole states. Even BOM and CSIRO claim they are several years away from producing useful and reliable forecasts with the government being asked to put up a large sum for purchasing new "super computers", I think that was the they term used. If you are not going to subscribe to his service, then you may have to be satisfied with reading testimonials from satisfied subscribers. He originally worked for BOM, but his thinking on what data was needed to make forecasts more accurate differed to theirs, so he left to start his own commercial forecasting service. His advantage was that he had found that incorporating IO data increased substantially the accuracy of his forecast models putting him about 10 years ahead of BOM in that regard, something I think we have discussed previously. He has continually added data from all ocean areas around Australia that wasn't previously being used for modeling.
90986. Marcus at 11:54 AM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Oops, seems I was *wrong*. according to this and this, the gap between production & consumption is even more dire than I thought.
90987. Marcus at 11:44 AM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       muoncounter, the other point to be made about Gilles 'facts' are this-#1, the graph conveniently ends at 2006 & #2, he fails to mention how Giga-barrels per year (or even total Giga-barrels) is leveling off at a dangerous rate-especially when you consider his previous graph, showing increased demand for oil. If total global oil reserves continue to level off whilst demand increases, then all I can say is that we're *stuffed*-unless we're smart & start to reduce our global oil consumption *now* by moving more towards better efficiency & increased use of bio-fuels.
90988. muoncounter at 11:33 AM on 26 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       johnd #85: "if you believe that there is no downtrend evident over the last 8 years then produce the relevant data that can be analysed." Produced here and here. Just look up this very thread or at a number of other 'global warming stopped in ... ' threads. If you're going to be a serious skeptic, you must try harder.
90989. JohnHarrington at 11:28 AM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       I like the terminal cancer patient analogy. No doctor can tell how the patient will feel a week from now, but with certain cancers, they can tell with a high degree of probability, similar to the confidence levels in the IPCC reports, that he will die within a certain time frame. I like this analogy because I think the reasons for the short term uncertainty and the relative long term certainty are similar.
90990. Philippe Chantreau at 11:20 AM on 26 March 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Damorbel, you've got nothing to say. Cut the BS and answer the substantive questions: Energy of a photon E=h.v Where is the temperature of the source? You have not the slightest clue of what you are babbling about and neither does LJR. "Trolling" is the only accurate way to describe what both of you did on this thread.
90991. johnd at 11:18 AM on 26 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       DB, the reason it still appears false to you, is that you haven't changed anything. It is still the complete period Feb 2003-2011 that you are using as a benchmark instead of examining what is plainly evident within that period. I think that you took your eye of the pea whilst trying to switch thimbles. There was no comparator period necessary, the trend of the period covered by the last 8 years is the subject in question. The challenge still stands, if you believe that there is no downtrend evident over the last 8 years then produce the relevant data that can be analysed. If you are now going to start claiming 8 years is insignificant, then why did you start using a 8 year period to try and make a point. Further to the point of being consistent, if data beyond 60S-60N is that important to you then why did you start posting maps that indicate no data beyond that point. Also it would help tremedously if your replies were made in the same manner as all other participants so that your posts appear at the top of the comments page as they are made. That also allows the order of each response being posted to be followed if replies to different posts, and different posters, are being made.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] You've made an extraordinary claim, were called on it and have since hastily waved hands while backtracking. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim with some actual analysis, not for others to disprove it.

90992. muoncounter at 11:04 AM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles #73: "what's the difference with : because they create more wealth ?" Create more wealth, for whom? "I didn't say that - i did say that it could be necessary to pay for it" Yeah, you did, in #68: "it may cost a little, but much less than giving up your job." As for your 'facts' (a bad choice using BP), oil sand reserves didn't just materialize in '98-'99. They were booked when the market price made it economic to book them. Those numbers are very fluid: Booking reserves was always an experience in answering the question 'what would you like it to be?' But a look at the very next graphic in the article you plucked your 'fact' graph from (and please cite your sources, else folks will justifiably think you're making stuff up) shows a very disappointing result: So your 'fact' inadvertently tells the truth about oil sands: They are a tiny segment of overall production. Unfortunately, the steam assisted recovery technology now in use produces more GHGs than traditional recovery methods. So your use of facts remains inconsistent. At least your style is consistent: An outrageous declaration provokes a response; your reply is invariably 'you misunderstand' or 'I didn't say that.' As the Cajuns say, C'est tout la même chose, n'est pas?
90993. JMurphy at 10:51 AM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       johnd, once a forecast has been made by Mr Holton, it must be available online somewhere, so that comparisons can be made between forecast and reality ? Do you know where this can be found, or do you know what his success rate is ?
90994. Albatross at 10:46 AM on 26 March 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       Ignoring for a moment the futility and folly of using short-term trends (less than 15 to 20 years), consider the linear trend in global SSTs from Hadley for different periods of time. Note what happened between 1979 and 1987. Now can we please stop playing this juvenile and unscientific game of cherry picking "skeptics"?
90995. Alex C at 10:34 AM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       Darn it Albatross, stole my word. A thought, perhaps you could include a hyperlink to where someone might find some info about Burroughs' book? Maybe an abstract or review, not Amazon but something informative.
90996. Alex C at 10:31 AM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       The attempt to find an analogy for this downplays the fact that the driving forces behind changing weather and changing climate are so fundamentally different that it ought to *be* the go-to analogy. That this argument even exists is a travesty for legitimate debate regarding global warming. However, good article: succinct, as it should be.
90997. johnd at 10:24 AM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       JMurphy at 10:11 AM, Ian Holton is considered one of the best. However I'm not sure how you will be able to compare his forecasts to others without subscribing to his service, or if you are even in the region he provides services to. Are you going to subscribe?
90998. Albatross at 10:22 AM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       JMurphy @10, Surely he means groups like IRI or ECMWF when referring to "progressive ones"? ;) Very nice post dansat-- succinct and informative. Yet another ridiculous "skeptic" myth busted.
90999. JMurphy at 10:11 AM on 26 March 2011
       Weather vs Climate
       johnd, I've asked you this before but maybe you missed it, so I hope you see this : can you give the names of those "progressive" forecasters, so it is possible to compare their results against the "mainstream" ones ?
91000. Gilles at 10:10 AM on 26 March 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       " And you have some data to substantiate this fancy scenario of yours? " yes of course, I have : do you know an oil company who closed a well before it wasn't profitable anymore ? " Or is it just the fancy colored graphical result of your profundity in #63, "the amount of available FF is increasing with time"?"" Again, just facts of course the amount of still available resources will decrease at some point , but not the URR (including past production).

Prev  1812  1813  1814  1815  1816  1817  1818  1819  1820  1821  1822  1823  1824  1825  1826  1827  Next