Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 Next
Comments 91201 to 91250:
-
getricks at 14:01 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
i cant see a link or any real reference to the poll this claims to quote...i have googled and cant find it, plenty of reports about it but where is it...please help mr moderator,,cant quote you if it cant be backed up -
BBP at 13:47 PM on 24 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
tfolkerts, Actually, the sun was cooler in the past, and will continue getting warmer until it starts to leave the Main Sequence. For example, see fig.3 in Vandenberg et al. (http://www.astro.uu.se/~bg/Boundary.pdf) - this isn't the best reference for this purpose, but it does show a good example of a solar evolutionary track -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:18 PM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
cloa513 The satellite measurements have been correlated against Radiosonde data as scaddenp linked to. In addition the technology is based on extremely well understood radiative physics and is based on a very simple signal from a single molecule. Taking muoncounter's point about seismic testing, that is based on validation against known rock profiles when it was first developed and laboratory studies of the vibrational properties of different rocks. A situation very similar to this although, to extend the analogy, here we are only dealing with 1 'rock' type - Oxygen molecules. -
Ken Lambert at 13:18 PM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Marcus #82 "Seriously, Ken, I think you need to read a little more widely than the brochures handed out by WMC, BHP & Rio-Tinto. " My prior reply was deleted by moderators, but the above ad hominem would seem a clear breach of the comments policy. Your points are unsupported by johnd and scaddenup who correctly agree with my comments about the storage of coal and load matching capability of coal fired plant. I was a commissioning engineer on a large coal fired C&F plant over 25 years ago, and although engaged in an unrelated industry since then - one does not forget the basics. Wind farms take vastly more space for the same output than a coal plant and mine. You tell me how much space you will need for 750 x 3MW wind turbines which would equate to 1 x Kogan Creek. And by the way - Kogan Creek would produce 750 x 24 x 365 x 0.9 = 5,913,000 MWhr of energy in a year at 90% availability. Your 3MW wind turbine at 30% availability will produce 3 x 24 x 365 x 0.3 = 7884 MWhr. 5913000/7884 = 750. 750 Turbines required. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:10 PM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
NewYorkJ @2 The Fu and Zou analyses are available through the links above although I am not sure they are updated every single month. I suspect that they are available because they are produced by sections of NOAA - NCDC & NESDIS - and providing data is part of NOAA's remit. V&G are University based and probably don't have funding for an on-going program. -
muoncounter at 12:50 PM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Hasn't such calibration/validation been done, notably by Tamino?
-
scaddenp at 12:40 PM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
I think he means that remote sensing must be calibrated or at least be validated against other measurement techniques. However, TLT isnt a measurement of surface temperature but, (like all MSU measurements), an average for a broad layer in the atmosphere. Validation then has to be done by comparison with radiosonde data. You might like to try here for starters. -
tjfolkerts at 12:38 PM on 24 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
In the past, the luminosity was less -- with a smaller diameter but a higher temperature. I was wondering what affect the change in temperature might make. While the overall energy would have been less in the past, the proportions in various bands would be different. Specifically, the proportion of IR would be less while the proportion of UV would be higher. In fact, I can easily imagine that the net amount of UV (and perhaps even visible) light would have have actually been greater from a dimmer yet hotter sun. This in turn would affect where within the atmosphere energy was absorbed. (It should be relatively easy to calculate the energy distributions, but I don't have numbers handy for the predicted temperature change over the last few billion years.) -
L.J. Ryan at 12:23 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
muoncounter 799 "Now that's a radical change of heart, as you specifically described earth's blackbody temperature here. And you've totally ignored the complete defenestration of your argument by KR (#773-775) and CBD (#785)." If you did not understand the context, sorry. Earth blackbody temperature, is a generally (I think) accepted naming convention for earths blackbody temperature equivalent. -
NewYorkJ at 12:14 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
"Regardless, the infamous 97% figure does not represent and should not be construed to represent the entire scientific community. " It's not claimed to be a representation of the "entire scientific community". You might want to read the opening paragraph of this post for starters. -
muoncounter at 11:59 AM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJR: "As long as the emissivity remains constant, i.e. remains a blackbody, the temperature remains unchanged." So let's stop talking about theoreticals; what happens when the emissivity of a real planet decreases? By your statement, if solar input remains the same and emissivity decreases, temperature must increase. Or do you now wish to change that as well? -
muoncounter at 11:36 AM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
cloa: "Any remote sensing professional in Petroleum knows that such remote measurements aren't worth anything ... " What are you talking about? The petroleum exploration industry is fully dependent on 'remote sensing;' millions are spent based on measurement at a distance - its called seismic profiling. But, here is correlation between surface and satellite temperature measures, all showing very similar trends. -
Harry Seaward at 11:31 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
My apologies: I am new here and did not mean to infer that I wrote what I posted. I should have posted as a link but was not sure how. I am on a different computer now and do not have my references, but will supply them tomorrow. Regardless, the infamous 97% figure does not represent and should not be construed to represent the entire scientific community.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Good practice is to check your sources carefully, rather than repeat what you may have seen in the blogosphere. Google scholar is a better place to look for source material; scholarly publications trump opinion-based histrionics. Here, you repeat a claim made on behalf of 'the entire scientific community' -- do you have any facts to back that up? -
muoncounter at 11:30 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Gilles: "I'm not doing science with polls." You're not doing science at all, especially when you state that tripe cribbed wholesale from deniersville is "a good piece of science." But then, you've not been long on facts, citations, references, source material, etc, since you arrived here. Earn some credibility by engaging in fact-based argument and refraining from opinion. -
cloa513 at 11:13 AM on 24 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Where is the cross-correlation with real measurements? Any remote sensing professional in Petroleum knows that such remote measurements aren't worth anything with real measurements to compare it to. -
scaddenp at 11:09 AM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Doesnt seem an unreasonable number. A number of rare earth elements are routinely used in making magnets. Just remember that "rare earths" mostly aren't that rare. -
Bern at 10:56 AM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Ken, Some of the most efficient & powerful wind turbines use rare-earth permanent magnets in their generators, which can generally be made smaller & lighter that way (an important property for something you're sticking in a nacelle 100+ metres off the ground!) I've seen statements here & elsewhere that it takes a tonne of rare earth elements to make one wind turbine, but I don't know how accurate that information is - my quick searching failed to turn up any such details. -
L.J. Ryan at 10:19 AM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Philippe Chantreau 797 "I am talking about a spherical blackbody receiving solar radiation at a constant rate in w/sq m, in the solar spectrum. If, by any means, that blackbody's ability to radiate energy out is impaired, what will happen to its temperature?" As long as the emissivity remains constant, i.e. remains a blackbody, the temperature remains unchanged. Got it Philippe. The spherical blackbody temperature will remain the same. -
scaddenp at 10:10 AM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
e, damorbel is consistently and repeatedly avoiding the question as to whether he will even philosophically accept the idea of an experiment as the way to settle a question. (asked here. This to me implies someone only interested in arguing with no intent to resolve anything, perhaps even a paid troll; or someone who prefers a faith-based position. I suggest there is no point discussing with him at all. -
adelady at 09:43 AM on 24 March 2011CO2 has been higher in the past
Don@49, you're pretty right. But ..... The devastating consequences we foresee relate to our experience of the world. Our grandchildren''s grandchildren will have a different - horrifying to us - experience of the world. They will have more knowledge than we do and, unfortunately, direct evidence of the wrongs that must be righted. They won't be able to recreate our congenial world. Certainly not in their own lifetimes. But they will be able to gain satisfaction from doing things that they know will benefit their own grandchildren's grandchildren. Staring into this abyss can make us weep. It can also galvanise us into determination that we should, must, will do whatever we can to speed our own societies onto a better path. Fatalism and depression are not good options. Geo engineering is, in fact, the thing that must be done some time or other to extract, absorb, sequester the accumulated geological release of carbon. Tree planting and similar bio-engineering of the carbon cycle in the surface and atmosphere won't be enough - but they must also be done thoroughly, extensively, permanently. Me? I'm pretty sure that the greedy will find a way to make some cash out of both bio and geo-engineering once they realise societies want it done and are willing to pay for it. The greedy, like the poor, are always with us. But their activities don't =always= have to be damaging. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel Please clarify the point you made here: "If a photon is absorbed by a surface, the surface gains the energy that was contained in the photon (by conservation of energy)". - This would only be true if the surface were at 0K i.e. it is not itself radiating." The question does not ask whether the energy absorption is balanced out by emissions, just whether an absorbed photon leads to an energy gain. Are you saying that it does not for an object above 0K? If not, what happens to the energy of the photon? Where did it go? As for how the energy is emitted, keep in mind the Stefan-Boltzman Law. The amount of energy radiated is dependent on the temperature of the material, not whether it has absorbed an extra photon recently. That means if the surface is constantly emitting and absorbing photons, and we increase the number of photons being absorbed, the only way for the surface to emit that extra energy is to get warmer. Do you agree with this? If not, what happens to the energy? How can the extra energy be emitted without the object getting warmer (again keeping in mind Stefan-Boltzmann)? If it isn't emitted, and it doesn't raise the temperature, what happens to this energy? -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan - "Do you agree?" No. The theoretic black body work (including Kirchoff) is based upon a "white light" excitation, equal across all frequencies, absorption and emission by the black body based upon the absorption/emission spectra. 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. And, as I stated earlier, given a fixed input power, and a need to radiate that (or change internal energy and hence temperature), emissivity and temperature have an inverse relationship. As effective emissivity of the planet goes down, temperature goes up. Asserting that the Earth follows "white light" illumination with interdependent absorption/emission is a complete mistake. It's a fixed input power outside the GHG affected thermal spectra, which is sufficient to radiate the incoming 240 W/m^2. And the black body temperature required to radiate that power is a lower limit on the temperature of a gray body of lesser emissivity. -
adelady at 09:15 AM on 24 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
"They"? 'They' seem to consist of China and India if I read the rest of your #88 correctly. I didn't have either of them in mind when I based my comment on Grameen Bank driven activities in Bangladesh. I was thinking more along the lines of Bangladesh and a dozen or more other countries in Africa and Asia with very large proportions of their population still at or near subsistence farming levels. "Capacities are the same..." The gradualism arises because of the lack of capital, including that required for grid infrastructure. The mere fact that the Bangladeshi example is financed by the Grameen Bank is a pretty good indicator that we're talking very, very small amounts of capital. It's not possible to buy or use a tiny fractional part of a centralised FF or hydro power plant and build it up piece by piece to a larger, wider power supply network. The much vaunted centralised power plants can't do that, they're all or nothing propositions. And the associated grid is built from large power stations outward whereas this Bangladeshi arrangement is about independence and freedom from reliance on such a centralised arrangement. Interconnectedness can follow rather than precede or prevent access to power supplies. Many countries are too poor to build enough centralised power stations, and certainly to instal the extensive grid needed to reach everyone in the further reaches of the countryside. Why should development of such communities, villages and towns passively wait for delivery of power they can't currently afford to buy anyway? Far better to build from the bottom up. Building local wealth and education from surplus income earned through judicious use of a small power supply, thereby allowing quicker eventual participation in the larger economy, looks like a winner to me. -
actually thoughtful at 08:59 AM on 24 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
RSVP: "So it looks like this whole focus on CO2 is pointless." Come again? CO2 is one of the main culprits of climate change. It is a stand in for the other gases, as they are minor, or in the case of methane, break down to CO2 anyways. Not sure where you are going there. Also, a cap and dividend is actually a tax cut for the poor because everyone spends the same at the pump, but it is a much higher percentage of a poor person's income. If it is kept completely neutral (ie dollar for dollar) - it has no impact whatsoever, other than providing the missing price information in a painless way. Twas a smart Republican who thought that up. -
Don Gisselbeck at 08:59 AM on 24 March 2011CO2 has been higher in the past
Yes, "technology will save us" is a slightly higher level of speculation than "God will save us". There is still no evidence that geo engineering will save us even if it is implemented. The implementation will require funding mostly from people who have demonstrated that they would rather see civilization destroyed than suffer the slightest diminution of their wealth and power. -
damorbel at 08:48 AM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re 786 Tom Curtis,point by point 1/ Yes 2/Not relevant. - The spectrum of samples plays no part in heat balsnce (Gustav Kirchhoff 1862 'Ueber das Verhälteniß zwischen dem Emissionensvermögen der Körper für Wärme und Licht'. 3/"If a photon is absorbed by a surface, the surface gains the energy that was contained in the photon (by conservation of energy)". - This would only be true if the surface were at 0K i.e. it is not itself radiating. 4/"If energy is absorbed by a surface, all else being equal, the temperature of the surface will rise, and the surface is warmed. - See 3 above. 5/"However, the surface of the Earth is typically warmer than the atmosphere, so it itself is radiating energy to the atmosphere, and is radiating more energy than it receives from the atmosphere." - Very far from clear. Two surfaces close to each other can both be radiating very strongly but without energy transfer. Energy is only transferred if there is some difference in temperature. 6/"Therefore, absent any other energy sources, the net effect of the interchange of photons between atmosphere and surface is that the surface cools and the atmosphere warms." - Yes. (But see 5/) 7/" However, if the atmosphere was not there, or did not radiate IR radiation: (a) the total energy emitted by the surface would still be the same, because that energy is solely a function of its temperature and emissivity; but (b) the surface would receive less energy because it would not be absorbing photons emitted by the atmosphere." - Regards (a)'Energy' is not emitted (see the answer at 5/) - Regards (b)The surface does not get energy from the atmosphere.(see 5/.) 8/"Therefore, over a given period of time, and ignoring all other energy sources, the Earth will cool quicker without an atmosphere containing GHG than it will with one." - This is very different. Now you are talking about 'The Rate of Cooling (Heating). The question of cooling (heating) rate is entirely a function of the albedo (if you take the 'rate' as a % of the temperature). The rate of temperature change (by radiation only) of any body is strongly dependent on its reflectivity, whether it has an atmosphere or not. If a body has a highly reflective surface it means there is very little material to either emit or absorb radiation, so heat transfer is minimal. 9/ -----> end. - No comment. -
dana1981 at 08:45 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
johnd - that still doesn't support RSVP's statements. For example, if the amount of cloudcover never changed, it would cause zero change in global temperatures, even though it plays a large role in the Earth's albedo. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:40 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
e @ 62... Careful using the word "denominator" around me. Last time that happened we ended up with a train wreck of a 750+ comment thread. ;-) -
Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Rob, Yeah the Anderegg results are discussed in the no consensus thread. It is telling that virtually the same result was obtained with a very different method and larger sample size (in the high expertise category). I have yet to see anything from the skeptic side with a robust denominator, much less two independent studies coming to the same result. -
johnd at 08:20 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
dana1981 at 06:54 AM, the RSVP statement is possibly based on daily observations where apart from the day night cycle, clouds are the next biggest factor in controlling the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground. Also perhaps as far as the energy budget goes, 23% of the average 340 watts per square metre total incoming solar radiation being reflected or absorbed by clouds. -
Gilles at 08:16 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
MuC : was kind of ironical. I'm not doing science with polls.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The irony is that nobody is doing science with polls. Anybody who thinks otherwise has misunderstood the point, the consensus is an indirect indication of the strength of the scientific argument (useful for those not in a position to assess the strength of the argument directly), but it isn't the scientific argument itself, or even a small part of it. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:16 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Ah, that would be Anderegg 2010. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:11 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
You can compare the results of Doran 2009 with almost any poll results and get a sense of the statistical significance of the numbers. A poll response of 1000 is very significant, especially out of such a small population. I would also venture to guess that the results are probably skewed high because a skeptical scientist is probably more likely to respond to such a questionaire. On top of that, didn't Andregg 2010 come up with very similar results using different methods? That would also suggest a robustness within the methods. -
dana1981 at 08:02 AM on 24 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Good point, Albatross. Really we're quibbling over hundredths of a degree in these comments. The main points are that there was a significant anthropogenic contribution to the early century warming, which wasn't as rapid or large as the current warming, which is almost entirely anthropogenic. -
Albatross at 08:00 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Thanks NewYorkJ @56, Lawrence Solomon is part of the group which is being sued by Dr Andrew Weaver (an eminent Canadian climate scientist) for libel. The National Post and Financial Post have a very long and sordid history of libelling climate scientists, misinforming, distorting and cherry-picking -- they simply cannot be trusted when reporting on climate science and have zero credibility. DeepClimate has more on their antics. Sad to see that Harry @51 has fallen for their misinformation. -
les at 07:58 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
So post 51 is plagiarism? Not the firstclimate [--snip--] to do that, eh? -
NewYorkJ at 07:38 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Looks like Harry's piece comes from Solomon. Lawrence Solomon's rant -
Albatross at 07:35 AM on 24 March 2011How Suffolk County Community College students contributed to the Guide to Skepticism
Hi all, No worries John C., I was just being facetious :) -
Albatross at 07:33 AM on 24 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Dana et al., Something else to keep in mind is that the peak in the early 1940s was/is probably too high-- that would reduce the amount of warming observed during the early part of the 20th century. I cannot recall the source, but the peak in global temperature anomalies in the early 40s is in part attributable to changes in the way sea-surface temperatures were measured during WWII. Specifically, British ships were not reporting SSTs (using the bucket method) during the war, while the US ships were, and they used temperatures derived from engine intake water which would have a slight warm bias. There is a citation for this, but I cannot track it down right now--looking after the Albie chicks.Moderator Response: [DB] Try here (keep the chicks happy!). -
NewYorkJ at 07:19 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
#51: "The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists." That's strange. One of the study's conclusion involves specifically meteorologists, and with researchers at NASA part of the survey, one would expect that would include physicists, astronomers, etc.. Where is the evidence they were excluded? http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf "Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma." I like this part. Where's the denominator? Those without a PhD made up 10% of the participants. Those without a PhD or Master's made up 3%. And speaking of qualifications, one would think published climate scientists would be more qualified than general Earth scientists.Moderator Response: [DB] Hot-linked URL. -
DSL at 07:10 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Oh come on, muon. It's worth talking about, even though Harrybot will probably not be willing to discuss the finer details. ------- Interesting, Harry. And here I was basing my understanding on the science. Were you? The bandwagon is notorious for breaking down in the middle of the highway. Both the original study and your analysis are based on the assumption that all scientists--or those with degrees in science--understand the physics and dynamic context. This is not nearly true. A number of scientists have been dragged before Congress to give their "expert" testimony, and some of these scientists--perhaps surprisingly--have been shown to be talking out of their depth. If 1000 out of 1000 geologists or meteorologists told me the planet was warming outside of any known cycle, I'd still ask "how." It's important to understand how statistics and consensus affect the general democratic population, but it has little bearing on the actual science--except in that funding allows greater exploration (and climatologists have, given the importance of their area, been relatively not so good at getting funded). If we come to the conclusion that the Zimmerman study is as you describe (including your "if by whiskey" bits), what does it ultimately mean, other than the general populace simply doesn't have the time, means, motivation, ability, or training to become responsible voters where this issue is concerned? The bottom line for me is that no scientist has come close to presenting any comprehensive alternative theory that is supported by the evidence and physical model as thoroughly as the theory that human-sourced atmospheric CO2 and CH4 are warming the planet. There are no competing theories. There is only positionless pot-shooting. HS1:"The researchers thus decided to tout responses by those Earth scientists who not only published mainly on climate but also identified themselves as climate scientists." (No! Not publishing climate scientists! What do those fiends know?!) HS2: "Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualification were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy." (but I thought you just said . . .) -
dana1981 at 06:54 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
RSVP #52 -"This would mean that the effect of white cloud tops reflecting sunlight has less effect on temperature than CO2, but of course this is not true"
Would you care to provide some evidence to support your claim besides "of course"? I've found that when somebody prefaces a statement by saying something like "obviously" or "of course", the statement which follows is based on little more than their "common sense", and is thus usually wrong. These terms are also used to dissuade people from questioning their factually incorrect assertion. "I don't have to prove it, because it's obvious!". Cadbury #53 - in the future, please take the time to understand what a person is saying before describing them as "preposterous" or "embarassing" [sic]. First off, floods do not happen in every geographic location every year. Secondly, floods have different magnitudes. Maybe that particular area of Tennessee floods once every 10 years, but the flood might only be as large as the 2010 flood once every 1,000 years. In which case it is a 1 in 1,000 year event. This is a really basic concept. It's not Dr. Cullen who should be embarrassed right now. -
CBDunkerson at 06:52 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Jay, I think you might benefit by slowing down and reading through some of the 'Most Used Skeptic Arguments'. As it is you seem to be flitting from one wild accusation to the next without stopping to breath. There is a ridiculous amount of information on the site and alot of these issues have been addressed previously. Why not read up and then find the proper threads to lay out in detail the strongest objections you can think of? Rather than some random person at a single hearing said something about a 'thousand year flood'... which obviously has about zero bearing on the overall question of whether AGW is a significant issue or not. -
CBDunkerson at 06:47 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Jay, are there floods of that magnitude in that location every year? I hope you'll agree the answer must be no. At which point we might ask, 'well how often on average does a flood of that magnitude happen in that location'... and apparently the answer to that based on available data is about every thousand years. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:47 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Well if you want to say that Tennesse had not had a flood that bad in 1000 years, that is different. However, we also know that there have been far, far more powerful storms in the past. In fact, I would say if you start at 1970, I could offer a counter example to any weather event that was stronger in the past.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] (correction) That isn't the claim either. The claim is not that a flood that bad had not occurred in the last 1000 years, but that a flood that bad is expected on average every 1000 years. There is nothing to prevent two "one in a thousand" floods happening in consecutive years, it is just very unlikely (one in a million assuming independence). Thus your challenge is also misguided as it misrepresents the statistical nature of a statistical statement. -
Preventing Misinformation
Dr. Cadbury >There are floods every year. I think it is fairly self-evident that when someone refers to a 1 in a 1000 year flood event, they are talking about a flood in a specific location with a specific severity, not the idea of flooding in general. I find it fairly disingenuous that you are attempting to spin this rather straightforward concept into a point of contention. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:40 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Dana I'm sorry but that's really just an embarassing, false claim. Yeah, here's my evidence that it's wrong. There are floods every year.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Apparently you are unaware that the term '100 year flood' has specific meaning; it does not occur every year (it would then be called the 'annual flood'). [Dikran Marsupial] Not all floods are of equal severity, the claim was that you should expect to see a flood of that severity or greater once in a thousand years. It doesn't mean that there will be a flood once in a thousand years. It is generally consideredna good idea to make sure you properly understand a claim before trying to refute it. -
RSVP at 06:40 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
"...carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth." This would mean that the effect of white cloud tops reflecting sunlight has less effect on temperature than CO2, but of course this is not true, just as the nonsense herein quoted. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 06:33 AM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Okay through my digging I found some equally stupid. It turns out that you can use climate models as an “instant replay” to recreate a specific weather event. Think of it like doing an autopsy, except it’s being performed on a specific extreme weather event. The European heat wave of 2003, an extreme weather event that killed over 35,000 people, offers the best example of how climate models can help us see the global warming embedded within our weather.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See the thread on extreme weather; nothing 'stupid' about it. At least make an attempt to find out how things work here.
[not muoncounter] ...and comment further on that thread, not this one. -
Gilles at 06:33 AM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Harry, thank you for this good piece of science ...Moderator Response: [muoncounter] And thus we see the last of Gilles' credibility.
Prev 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 Next
