Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 Next
Comments 92701 to 92750:
-
rockytom at 17:49 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
I have an entire list of things that Republicans are against, and "ideas" is at the top. Republicans are conservatives and they don't like "ideas." Anything that shakes their system of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values is anathema to them. Climate science is something they choose not to understand. Unfortunately, we have to wait two years to get them out of office, hopefully before sea level rises and stronger storms kill all the Democrats and free thinkers among us.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Let us not paint all conservative Republican Judeo-Christians with your anti-science brush (at least this one objects to your broad labeling). If you mean the majority of those in elected office in the Republican Party (quite frankly, many on the Democratic side of the aisle have unclean hands in this matter as well), then your point may be valid. -
Kevin Hood at 17:45 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
From "Plutocracy Now" by Kevin Drum in the April 2011 Mother Jones: Princeton poltical scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behaviour of US Senators in the early '90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that's not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all. It doesn't take a multivariate correlation to conclude that these two things are tightly related: If politicians care almost exclusively about the concerns of the rich, it makes sense that over the past decades they've enacted policies that have ended up benefitting the rich. Living here in Alaska where climate change is profoundly affecting the state and yet all politicians clamor for more oil drilling (89% of the State budget is funded by royalties from oil & gas), it is clear that there is one rule in politics: money talks. And no one has more money than the fossil fuel industry. The only surprise for me anymore is that anyone still looks to our politicians for a response to climate change. -
owl905 at 17:41 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"And many of those voters don't subscribe to the EPA regulations that are being defined and enforced by unelected bureaucrats." Not sure where you got that distraction from, but the EPA was forced to take action by the Supreme Court. The EPA dragged its feet waiting for Congress to act, and Congress flunked out. Don't blame the process - it worked right up to the point where a Republican piece of anti-science syndrome went to Disneyland for a pollution solution. -
dana1981 at 17:27 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Robert and Alex, well said! -
Alex C at 17:14 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
To clarify, since we're both using "interests" but with different meaning, I think "wants v. needs" could apply better to what I'm trying to say. -
Alex C at 17:11 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
>>>Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office. According to the ideal, hypothetical processes of governance within a democratic republic. This is real life though, where there are several philosophies of voting and where the issues often dictate the type of response needed. An issue as potentially dangerous to our well being and future stability, for which scientific evidence and verified projections have already beed provided time and time again (e.g. the Fingerprints articles on here, and the "Models are unreliable" rebuttal), would be best approached from a mindset that holds the interests, not the whims, of the constituents in mind. Such a political mindset is what, after all, led to the end of slavery and segregation for example: policy being implemented over whims and toward interests. -
robert way at 17:06 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"Americans have had a long history of confronting the brutal facts and changing accordingly when the evidence and the message are clear (slavery, segregation, women's rights, tobacco, gay rights, isolationism, etc.). " No no sir, certain americans have a history of confronting these brutal issues. Certain americans learned long before the rest of americans that slavery was wrong and that women and gays deserved equal rights. Are you implying that we should be satisfied with slow progress because "that's how it works in america"? I'm sorry but there are far too many african american people who got beat up while waiting for their rights to kick in for me to take your argument seriously. It is wrong to drag your feet on these issues, I dont care about how it has happened before, those who slow progress will not be looked upon kindly by history. -
robert way at 17:01 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
garythompson at 16:17 PM on 13 March, 2011 "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office. And many of those voters don't subscribe to the EPA regulations that are being defined and enforced by unelected bureaucrats. This may be hard to swallow for the AGW crowd but this is how Democracy works and that is how the Republic of the USA was set up." Actually Science isn't a democratic venture. IF the majority in the Senate put in place a law that said Gravity wasn't real because their constituents supported it, it doesn't make it any more true. Politicians have a duty first and foremost to look out for the well-being of the country even ahead of the will of the people. We would still have racial segregation in the South if your opinion of democracy were followed through on. -
dana1981 at 16:48 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Gary - if we lived in a democracy, we would already have a cap and trade system in place, as it's supported by the majority of Americans. As for showing you the data, that's what we'vebeen trying to do. Your eyes have to be open first. -
jyyh at 16:41 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"You can claim that the other side is ignorant but that doesn't progress your cause." Again someone who believes there are sides in this matter. n/t. -
logicman at 16:31 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
It seems that whatever the issue there will always be politicians who believe that the economy should be placed first in all debates about human welfare. In response to the evident economic motivation behind the claim that "global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it", I would like to cite the reply given on another issue regarding government interference in the economic affairs of gentlemen: Rebuttal to the claim that government interference in the trade in question would cause great economic harm: "This is a proposition not only false and unfounded, but which has been repeatedly confuted by those who are better qualified than myself to discuss it. I believe the contrary to be case ..." Viscount Mahon. Hansard, Feb 23 1805 Hansard database Is a mine of information about historical events and can be a useful adjunct to scientific studies. -
garythompson at 16:17 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"These politicians need to be reminded that they are supposed to be looking out for the American public's welfare and best interests, not prohibiting the EPA from doing just that." Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office. And many of those voters don't subscribe to the EPA regulations that are being defined and enforced by unelected bureaucrats. This may be hard to swallow for the AGW crowd but this is how Democracy works and that is how the Republic of the USA was set up. Most Americans do want cleaner energy and will pursue that in a common sense manner. The following link outlines this thinking. I think the following quote from that article sums up the feeling of most Americans: "People with common sense know you can both exploit our natural resources and pursue renewables at the same time. In fact doing the former will help generate the wealth to permit engaging in the latter. And wealth is what it is going to take to move from fossil fuels over time." The proposals from the EPA and others suggest a cut and burn apporoach which is painful and without a reason for this pain, the American people will not embrace this. If we don't have time to slowly transition to cleaner, renewable energy sources then we need data to support this. I think this is the crux of the argument and the point of frustration from the AGW point of view. If the science and data really supports this premise then the scientists have the duty to tailor their message accordingly. Americans have had a long history of confronting the brutal facts and changing accordingly when the evidence and the message are clear (slavery, segregation, women's rights, tobacco, gay rights, isolationism, etc.). In the examples I listed here, the change took longer than it should have taken but Democracy is not easy and it isn't for everyone but we are in the middle of a serious debate with regard to climate change. It is my feeling, that the likes of Gore, Hansen and Schmidt (realclimate.org) have hurt the AGW position and caused a majority of Americans to have preconceived notions with any AGW message that is delivered. You can claim that the other side is ignorant but that doesn't progress your cause. With a subject as complicated and important as Climate Change, it is the duty of the Scientists to do something they are not comfortable with. They must think about how their message is communicated and do this in a political manner. This has nothing to do with data or science but it is required and they must own up to this. The state of Missouri is called the 'show me state'. The people of that state typify the feeling of most Americans - show me the data, make predictions that are verifiable and then I'll believe you. If AGW is true, then list predictions for the next 1 to 5 years that people can monitor and verify - then your case will be iron clad and we'll line up and do what ever is necessary to solve the problem. -
jyyh at 15:31 PM on 13 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Of course politics can dictate scientists, f.e. in Nazi Germany all remaining scientists were recruited to assist in war efforts and phrenology (fringe science even back then) was used to separate aryan races from other races. There's even the traditional joke, that the phrenological constraints of being an aryan had to be changed to include Hitler which in turn saved 10000s of polish people... -
damien at 15:19 PM on 13 March 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
The Tamino post in further reading is no longer active. Fortunantly, the wayback machine can help us.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thanks; that one and many more recoverable lost Open Mind posts are linked at the Archive. -
Climate sensitivity is low
For your amusement - this is now an active topic on Jo Nova's site. One of her readers did a blog post for her on this very thread, claiming that efficacy was a "fudge factor" allowing made-up numbers. Discussion ensued... -
Phila at 14:08 PM on 13 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
HR: Is it possible that Hansen can be both a scientist and an ideologue? His activism certainly suggests so. I think his "activism" only suggests this if you proceed dogmatically from the assumption that he's largely or entirely wrong. Otherwise, you could just as easily see it as a rational response to an actually existing problem. Hopefully, you're not so wedded to the a priori assumption that AGW is a hoax or an exaggeration that you can't acknowledge this point. And before you ask: Yes, I can imagine the consensus turning out to be wrong, just as I can imagine evolution turning out to be wrong. I just wouldn't care to bet anything valuable on it. You present it as a clear black and white issue, science on one side, ideology on another. No, I really don't. I say that there are people who tend to have a lot of relevant expertise on one side, and people who tend to have little or none on the other. Ideology enters into the equation primarily to the extent that it empowers the latter group to present their generally uninformed and paranoiac speculation as "scientific scrutiny." My position on this question is probably not that different from your position on aircraft mechanics versus pastry chefs: you'd probably prefer the former to service the airplanes you board. Of course, the people who tend to lack relevant expertise could turn out to be right, despite their errors and misrepresentations and demonstrable ignorance. But again, I wouldn't bet anything valuable on it. Especially if it weren't really mine to bet. -
robert way at 13:10 PM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
It isn't quite so simple as to say warm periods cause the IRD events. In fact evidence suggests that these occurred simultaneously across difference ice regions of the northern hemisphere. Very complicated subject. -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:49 PM on 13 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
cloa513... You clearly do not understand what a baseline is. A baseline is merely a base point to measure an anomaly from. It's really quite irrelevant. -
cloa513 at 12:39 PM on 13 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 8: Kevin Trenberth
There is no way to compare what would happen without Anthrogenic green house gases to with as all the significant data gathering happened well after the start. So no baseline possible. -
HumanityRules at 12:26 PM on 13 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
18 Chris Colose Thanks for the reply. Do you mind clarifying something. "but non-linearity in sensitivity is rather small over the ranges of climate of interest to us right now. Certainly you don't want to compare snowball Earths to say, the PETM directly, but I haven't seen anything suggesting it's a big deal for evaluating modern global warming." Here you're suggesting that you don't think the magnitude of the problem is so great when comparing modern conditions to say the LGM? Anyway your references lead me to this review (which includes Crucifix as an author). I thought it was useful in presenting the strengths and weaknesses of various CS estimates as well as being easy to follow. Would this be a balanced assessment of the science? Chris ignore this if you think it's straying too far away from the CO2 free atmosphere subject. -
RickG at 12:23 PM on 13 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
HR: RiskG do you think that the West Side Highway will be inundated by the sea in 2028? Does the evidence suggest it will? Not in 2028, but it eventually will at some point in the future as sea level continues to rise at an accelerating rate as a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 is approached. -
HumanityRules at 12:09 PM on 13 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
From Peru I thought some stuff from Joel Norris was quite interesting on the subject. The first presentation on this list I thought was easy to follow as a layman. It makes the point that clouds are a dynamic rather than thermodynamic problem although I'm not too clear on what that means :) -
Tom Curtis at 12:07 PM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Camburn @14, Wanner and Bütikoffer is the paper you linked @9. I am not sure why there is doubt about classifying the LIA as a Bond event, as it shows all the appropriate characteristics. Nor is the interval between it and the preceding Bond event the shortest. The interval between the Bond event of 9400 BP and that of 10300 BP is shorter. So, if we do consider the LIA to not be a "Bond event", then the claim of any of the Bond events to be one is also impeached. We then left with occasional coolings of the NH with not single causation, or periodic nature. In that case, talking about such an event being "due" is a form of the gambler's fallacy. Finally, the gradual drying of the Sahara over the period 5000 BP to 3000 BP seems well confirmed by a number of studies, including near the Nile (previously linked article) and near Lake Chad. This has been a consistent pattern recorded across 5 or so papers I have read on the subject. Interestingly, more southerly locations have a delayed onset of drying, as would be expected if the drying was a result of a shrinking of the northern Hadley cell, with a resulting shrink of the area of monsoonal rainfall, an expected consequence of a cooling climate. Further, models driven by reductions in NH summer insolation, or increased GHG forcing both show an increase in size of the Hadley cell, with a resulting moister Sahara; although there are subtle differences between the two cases. So, unless you can produce a contrary paper as evidence, I think we are wise to assume Saharan drying was not a consequence of Bond events. -
HumanityRules at 11:59 AM on 13 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
61 Phila We humans are complex beasts. We can take on many roles simultaneously, some of them contradictory. Is it possible that Hansen can be both a scientist and an ideologue? His activism certainly suggests so. Just for clarity I'm not trying to be disparging about him here, I quiet like somebody to take a clear position on things even when I disagree with them. I just think it's too easy to draw the boundaries the way you do. You present it as a clear black and white issue, science on one side, ideology on another. That's surely too simplistic. It's not the way I perceive it anyway. The skeptic argument contains "ideologically motivated ankle-biting" and some of it shows up on WUWT but the argument doesn't end there. There is a basis for scepticism from within the science based on the uncertainty and interpretative nature of the science. (apologies for going OT here) -
HumanityRules at 11:23 AM on 13 March 2011Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
53 RickG Given that Hansen is answering one clear question with the answer to another question let's simplify this. RiskG do you think that the West Side Highway will be inundated by the sea in 2028? Does the evidence suggest it will? -
From Peru at 11:04 AM on 13 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
In my prevoius comments I wanted to talk about the opposite of a CO2-free Earth: a Super Greenhouse Earth, i.e. with CO2 concentrations similar to the concentration of O2(oxygen) in the present day atmosphere, (that is, CO2 over 10%). This happened in the snowball events aftermath and possibly before 3000 million years ago (O2 isotopes suggest a temperature of about 70ºC then). The huge warming (earth temperatures would be above 40ºC) will cause a huge evaporation leading to an extremely high water vapor content in the atmosphere. What the cloud cover would be like in that world? Could the Earth have been 100% cloud covered like today is the planet Venus? And what kind of clouds will be the more common, high altitude cirrus clouds(with a net warming effect), low altitude stratocumulus clouds (with a net cooling effect) or huge troposphere-wide cumulonimbus clouds (with nearly neutral temperature effect)? -
Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM on 13 March 2011It's the sun
johnd, I was responding to Muoncounter, and to a specific challenge by Inconvenient Sceptic. With regard to ENSO, you are neglecting the fact that ENSO involves a redistribution of heat over depth in the pacific ocean. In particular, the deep warm waters of the Pacific Warm Pool are redistributed across the surface of the tropical Pacific. Therefore, as regards to its primary nature, it balances out in terms of energy distribution. Of course, the ocean interacts with the atmosphere through the surface, so an increased warmth at the surface should show similar feedbacks whether the cause is a change in forcing, or a redistribution of heat from the depths. Therefore we should expect a significant additional warming from El Nino events, and a significant extra cooling from La Nina events; which is what we in fact see. This contradicts denier claims of a low climate sensitivity. This additional warming (or cooling), however, will not introduce a trend to global temperatures because the same feedbacks operating in reverse will remove the additional warmth (or cooling) from an ENSO fluctuation from the atmosphere. -
Camburn at 10:36 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Tom: I thought I was very clear that the stimuli for the Bond events is not known but only suggested at. I don't have the paper at hand, and am only speaking from memory of the paper that showed a shift in hydrological trends in the Sahara that started while a Bond event was in place and continued on after that event was over. There is question that the LIA was an actual Bond type event. If it wasn't, then we are about due for another. I can't seem to find your Wanner and Buttikoffer paper.Moderator Response: [DB] Another Wanner and Bütikofer 2008 can be found here. -
johnd at 10:11 AM on 13 March 2011It's the sun
Tom Curtis at 08:57 AM , I agree with the idea that geography is a factor and have posted on it on some other threads. I have focused more on the cycles such as ENSO which some people feel balances out once a cycle is complete, ignoring that it is the geographic distribution that determines what conditions each phase brings to a region, and thus all things are not equal, or mirror images of one another. This should be taken into account when considering how this plays into the heating or the cooling of the oceans. -
Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Camburn, the paper you linked to @9 shows strong evidence of Bond events in the North Atlantic, but ambiguous evidence for it elsewhere in the globe. It also shows the correlation of Bond events to solar activity it hotly contested. I am not sure how it helps your case. @7 you make several claims, none of which you support with evidence. One at least, is very dubious. The wet conditions in the Sahara arrived suddenly with the warmer conditions following the Younger Dryas, and dissipated slowly in the period 5000 to 3000 before the present. As such, it shows no significant correlation with Bond events that I know of. If you have evidence of such a correlation, please show it. Otherwise it is most logically treated as a consequence of global warmth during the Holocene Climactic Optimum. Your claim that we are "about due" for a Bond event is certainly false. Quite apart from the fallacy of claiming that a recurring event with durations between events varying between 900 and 2300 years is "periodic" and can be "due"; the peaks of the Bond events are "... around 400, 1,400, 2,800, 4,300, 5,900, 8,100, 9,400, 10,300 and 11,100 cal years BP." (Wanner and Büttikoffer (2008)) Clearly the next Bond event will not be "due" for several hundred years at least, and probably not for another thousand years. -
Albatross at 09:37 AM on 13 March 2011Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
Angus @101, Aaah, the goal posts shift :) First, forgive me, but I am not going to take your posted Figure at face value. Given the choice between a practicing climate scientist and you, I choose Dr. Schmidt. Also, I note with interest that you are using HadCRUT-- but "skeptics" claim that the CRU folks fudged the data, despite what the numerous investigations found. And we know very well why HadCRUT has become the darling of "skeptics", despite those allegations-- it is because it runs cooler than NCDC and GISTEMP. Now I expect you to now claim why the GISTEMP cannot be trusted et cetera, but that would just amount to you dismissing the truth again. "I would appear that Mother Nature is putting the brakes on for us." As much as I would like for that to happen, Hansen et al's recent peer-reviewed paper published in Rev. Geophys. disagrees with your opinion. Specifically, referring to their Fig 21. (see hyperlink, used 5 and 11-yr running means to negate impacts of ENSO and the solar cycle) they conclude that: "On the contrary, we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15°C–0.20°C per decade that began in the late 1970s"
[Source NASA GISTEMP]
So feel free to believe whatever you want the data to show you Angus, it does not change the reality or the science. Again, if asked to choose between your opinion and the hard facts and data presented by prominent climate scientists, I choose the scientists.
I'll close with this graph from SkepticalScience which shows the primary global air temperature records--onwards and upwards:
Some advice Angus, the next time you take your car in for a service and the technician informs you that your break pads urgently need replacing or your breaks need servicing, I do hope for the safety of you and your family that you listen. Now they could be wrong, it could be a conspiracy, but in all likelihood s/he is right and is looking out for you and your family.
-
Albatross at 09:07 AM on 13 March 2011Christy's Unconvincing Congressional Testimony
Camburn @45 and 49, "It disputes Mr. Zwiers assertion that the recent winters are tied to AGW in the US. First, this thread is about Christy (a "skeptic") recently misleading Congress and the public about the science of climate change. Now you might be OK with that, others are justifiably not. So please stop trying to detract from Christy's misconduct. Now regarding Dr. Zwiers. This is what he actually stated in his written testimony: "Recently we have seen a spate of extreme climate and weather events that have drawn intense media interest, including this winter’s intense storms affecting the US and Canadian eastern seaboard,....." Canada indeed experience some severe nor'easter events these past winter. If you do not believe me go and look at the media reports. Also from NCDC: December 2010: "Several large winter storms affected the U.S. during the month. According to data from the Rutgers Global Snow Lab, the December snow cover extent was the seventh largest on record for the continuos US. Several cities across the Midwest and Northeast broke monthly snowfall records including Minneapolis, Minnesota and Syracuse, New York. January 2011: "Several winter storms impacted the northeastern U.S. during January, causing New York City and Hartford, Connecticut to break January snowfall records. The 57.0 inches (145 cm) which fell at Hartford's Bradley International Airport was the city's all-time snowiest month on record. The snowstorm that traversed the northern plains, Great Lakes and Northeast United States on January 9-13 ranked as a Category 3, or "Major" snowstorm, according to preliminary analysis on the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS). The NESIS score of 5.31 was slightly greater than the "Christmas 2010" blizzard and slightly less than the storm of late February 2010." February 2011: "Several record breaking snowstorms caused the U.S. to have above average snow cover extent during February. The "Groundhog Day Blizzard" dropped at least 5 inches of snow in 22 states." Dr. Zwiers is correct, and you have misrepresented his statement. -
Tom Curtis at 08:57 AM on 13 March 2011It's the sun
muoncounter @795, I'm afraid you are showing a Northern Hemisphere bias. Perihelion is not winter, but winter in the Northern Hemisphere, while being summer in the Southern Hemisphere. The reverse is true of aphelion. And the interesting facts about solar radiation and outgoing radiation that you point to apply approximately to all temperate and polar locations, regardless of their location in either the Southern or Northern Hemisphere, so it is not in itself the explanation of the phenomenon. This is complicated by geography, which influences the rate at which heat is transferred from the tropics to the poles. London, sitting close to a branch of the Gulf Stream, for example, will show a smaller (more negative) net radiation because it is substantially warmed by that current. Seattle would show a larger (less negative) net radiation because of the cold current of its coast (I believe). Both of these cities would show a larger net radiation in summer than, for example Moswow which would have hotter summers and cooler winters because of its inland location. In fact, overall the NH would display less of the disreprancy you indicate because of its larger land mass. That means fewer of its locations are close to the coast. It is that fact which in fact accounts for the Earth being warmer at perihelion (the NH summer). Temperature variations are smaller in the SH because so little of its land is far from the ocean, and there is so much more ocean. The greater heat capacity results in a smaller overall seasonal fluctuation in temperature. That means the NH seasonal fluctuation dominates overall, resulting in greater warmth during the NH summer, which coincidentally is at the moment during aphelion. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:44 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Camburn @ 9... There are definitely differing opinions on Bonds events. That's why I linked that last paper, Maslin 2009. That's the most recent paper I could find on the topic, which suggests that Bond events are there. My biggest takeaway from this topic is that the planet often redistributes temperature around the planet. And the difference with today is that we see nearly all indicators of temperature going in one direction. I believe that is the unprecedented nature of warming this past century. -
Phil at 08:30 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Camburn and Daniel #9 and #10 This is the syntax exactly: <a href="http://geography.cz/sbornik/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/g08-4-1wanner.pdf">http://geography.cz/sbornik/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/g08-4-1wanner.pdf</a> -
Paul D at 08:25 AM on 13 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
Chemware@1 One of their investors (Redpoint), invests in 'green' research and technology: http://www.redpoint.com/portfolio/energy-and-environment/ -
Camburn at 07:04 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Moderator: I am somewhat frustrated. I have tried to do the link correctly, but it seems to disappear. DB: Your eplanation was good, but I must be missing a step.Moderator Response: [DB] See my response to you in the previous comment. You'll get it. Without the interior label, your link (though constructed properly) would not echo back to the screen (the interior label serves as a graphical placeholder for the link).I figured it out, eventually. If I can, anybody can.
-
Camburn at 07:02 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Took me some digging, but I finally found this again: Relates to the validity of Bond cycles. Are they real or imaginary correlations? http://geography.cz/sbornik/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/g08-4-1wanner.pdfModerator Response: [DB] You were almost there. The html tag string has an interior set of right-and-left arrows, between which goes the name of the link or whatever you're calling whatever you're linking to, which was missing. Here's the string with no arrows, substituting the number 1 for the left arrow (shares the same key as the comma on my keyboard) and the number 2 for the right arrow (shares the same key as the period on my keyboard):1a href="http://geography.cz/sbornik/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/g08-4-1wanner.pdf"2http://geography.cz/sbornik/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/g08-4-1wanner.pdf1/a2
or1a href="http://geography.cz/sbornik/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/g08-4-1wanner.pdf"2Here's a link to an interesting study I found1/a2
Which (substituting the appropriate arrows back in for the 1's & 2's) yields: -
Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
johnd - You handle long term changes such as that the same way we handle the aerosols in the 1950s-1970s: you note the active factors and look at long term trends in light of them. Long term shifts do not introduce noise, they introduce long term slope changes. And the 30-year averaging is intended to average out noise, variability that we don't have a handle on due to chaotic factors and details of local interactions. I'll note that I have yet to see a 60-year cycle actually extractable from the data; many have tried, but it just doesn't hold up under numeric analysis as periodic events. -
muoncounter at 05:02 AM on 13 March 2011It's the sun
Rob, I often see this in students. They take a position based on something they've heard (or, sadly, been told by a parent or prior teacher) and cling to it no matter what. If, after a little Socratic give-and-take, you can see their doubt level rising, you can make a difference. However, some are afraid to simply admit that they've been misinformed or are just plain wrong. In the case of some of the most ardent skeptics, clinging to a pre-conceived notion frequently results in highly unscientific thinking -- and down goes credibility. In a case like this, realizing that net radiation is what matters leads to the next logical step: if we reduce the earth's outgoing radiation, the planet must warm. But that requires a greenhouse effect ... and that violates the pre-conceived notion. Illogical, does not compute! -
johnd at 04:34 AM on 13 March 2011Interactive animation of the climate change impact on agriculture
KR at 12:30 PM, we know from research that the climate in various regions has regularly alternated between wet phases and dry phases, with the corresponding effects on temperature, for periods up to double the 30 year standard. Please demonstrate how the 30 year standard would provide usable data in such circumstances. The projections made whilst in the midst of such periods are going to yield different results. This can be a problem for forecasts produced by statistically modeling. Most of this identification of such longer term cycles has only come about through recent research, thus is unlikely to have been taken into account when discussions on this subject were taking place a century ago. -
Camburn at 04:25 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Rob: The Byrd ice core is interesting in itself because it does show continued warmth during the Holocene. This is in direct contrast to some of the proxy literature of lower latitudes. I have to thank you for posting about the Bond events. These events allow good discussion about world wide climate without the "political" flare. I appreciate this. -
Camburn at 04:20 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
From the papers I have read it seems to me that the regional hydrological cycles have more information in them than "temperature" cycles. To change regional hydrocycles, such as the Sahara changing to desert, or Western NA having 400+ years of drought and then turning to a wet cycle show global circulation changes. These events are tied to temperature, but temperature does not always lead to these events occuring. There are indications that temperature shift are a result of these hydrological shifts, rather than the hydrological shift being a result of a change in temperature. Bond events from the past are tied to the suns strength. I am not only talking about TSI, but rather isotope data showing the changes in UV etc. TSI is not always a predictor of temperature. There have been several long term basin studies done throughout the world showing the correlation between solar cycle strength and precipitation over a large area. One thing that is certain, when a Bond event occurs, hydrological cycles throughout the world change very very quickly and this is off concern as we are about due for a Bond type event cycle wise. If we could only be sure what causes this event it would certainly make it easier to understand its scope and total dynamics. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:19 AM on 13 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
cloa513 @ 21... That's a fascinating perspective. Do you have anything at all to back you up on that position other than just saying it? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:17 AM on 13 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
hengistmcstone... That is really fascinating! Did you document it at all? -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:55 AM on 13 March 2011It's the sun
It's so clear what is happening with TIS, and I see it in so many others who hold his position. They are in this constant process of confirmation bias. They start with the conclusion that AGW can't be correct and waltz through their way through the science locating the points that support that position. What they don't do is push past any of those points to fully understand the science because that endangers the conclusion they want to find. -
muoncounter at 03:44 AM on 13 March 2011It's the sun
Another observation re TIS' comment: "Explain the warmer July to me without using geography. ... if accurate, it does prove that geography plays a very strong role in global temperature." That's hardly an adequate 'proof.' But let's play with it anyway. Here's something that doesn't appeal to geography: Your statement 'the earth gets more energy in winter than in summer' clearly refers only to incoming solar radiation. It is certainly true that the peak value of solar insolation averaged across all latitudes at the time of perihelion (winter) is 7% greater than at aphelion (in summer), but isn't that primarily because the earth is closer to the sun in winter? However, basic Physical Geography (the name of textbooks, not part of the explanation) gives the control on temperature as the net radiation: the sum of incoming (daytime) and outgoing (nighttime). For example, this is London:
--from physicalgeography.net
During the winter months, outgoing longwave radiation actually exceeds incoming insolation producing negative net radiation values.
The linked page gives examples for several other locations.
So when length of day is taken into account, the 7% additional energy 'received' in winter is radiated away during those long winter nights; winters are colder than summer.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:34 AM on 13 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Camburn @ 5... I think you are correct, to an extent. I believe that, in general, Vostok is actually considered to be more representative of the planet as a whole. Reading through a bunch of papers on ice cores I find that the Byrd ice core is used as often Vostok for comparing NH/SH. The interesting thing you find there is that Byrd shows an overall warming trend over the Holocene, and also shows the same D-O and Bond antiphase events you see in Vostok. I'm currently trying to locate the actual data for Byrd during the Holocene. All the data at NOAA ends prior to the Holocene. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:27 AM on 13 March 2011It's the sun
TIS... (From previous thread) What you are missing saying that the planet warms and cools 4C during the year is the trend. Take that same monthly series that I linked from NOAA and plot it on a graph. You see the series rise and fall the ~4C that you state. But read the rest of the page. This data is the basis for the anomaly. As the the planet warms that same series you plotted is moving upward. All the datasets plot this. UAH, RSS, GISS, CRU... They are all taking this annual cycle into account. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:19 AM on 13 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
TIS... I'm posting a response to #45 on the proper thread per the moderator response above.
Prev 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 Next
