Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 Next
Comments 94151 to 94200:
-
protestant at 09:02 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
oops. Someone fix my link, please. Thank you. -
protestant at 09:02 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
The proxies are inaccurate and do not respond solely on temperature, so there is no reason to hide any data. That is *not* scientific practise deleting adverse data. And for the same reason no thermometer readings are justified being plot on the same graph as I stated on several other topics elsewhere here. A graph from prof Müllers presentation:
illustrates clearly, that there are similar "divergence" problems everywhere in the reconstruction.
You can watch the hidethedecline part of his talk
here.
And the main point is, why that is misleading (even if its mentioned in the text) is that, most of the people who read it have no understanding on statistic techniques or the major uncertainities on such statistical excercises.
Unless you will use a caption: "Warning. This data is baked to show us the result we wanted. It is purely an artifact of statistical excercises and only the temperatures which have been replaced with thermometers are somewhat reliable."
I do not understand how people can still be defending the indefensible like "hide the decline".
And Robert Way, please! That is ... . For the 2nd time in a short period of time I see you attacking Curry personally. Last time you used a link on ClimateProgress which is known to be propably the biggest disinformation & ad-hominem site on the whole field. You should be aware that neither you nor Joe Romm have absolutely none of the scientific credentials nor match the expert judgment in the subject. Nope. -
Albatross at 09:02 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Rhjames @13, Seriously? To be honest, I don't think any amount of evidence that is out there which supports a positive feedback will convince you. And a little troubling that you are apparently unconcerned about Spencer using inappropriate parameters in his models. Also, going by your tone, I do not think we need to take your "story" or interpretation seriously. Maybe this paper by Rohling et al. (2009) will perhaps convince you to be just a little more concerned about sea-level rise. It could very well be that the scientists have been too conservative in their estimates of sea-level rise. In fact, recent observations on are on the very upper bound of the expected range reported in the IPCC (i.e, the scientific community). Anyhow, GSL rise is off topic. So I'll move on. -
Alexandre at 08:55 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Kevin #11 If this warming were caused by cloud albedo, that would mean this albedo would have been decreased, that is, more shortwave radiation from the sun would have reached the surface to heat it up. The heated surface would in turn emit more longwave radiation. This increase has not been observed. Longwave is emited by cooler bodies, like the earth heated by the sun. Shortwave is emited by very hot bodies, like the sun itself. So trying to answer your question, increased shortwave emission from the Earth would take place if our albedo was increased (thus reflecting back more of the sun's shortwave). If you want to understand this LW/SW emission better, I'd recommend the first two or three lectures of David Archer here. It's global warming physics for non-scientists at the Chicago University. -
Jesús Rosino at 08:51 AM on 28 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Thanks for your answer, dana1981. However, I don't think a low climate sensitivity opens up that window to a natural effect. If such a natural factor existed, it might affect climate sensitivity (it might not). However, the fact that climate sensitivity was low, IMHO, wouldn't say anything about the likelihood of its existence. Consider, for example, the uncertainty in radiative forcing from aerosols. Imagine that, within the said uncertainty, aerosols happened not to have cooled the planet much, and their negative radiative forcing is in reality at the lower end of our estimate (close to zero). This would imply that net radiative forcing would be in the upper end of our estimate (around 2.4 W/m2), and therefore climate sensitivity would be in the lower end of our estimate, with the 'percentage' of warming attributed to human activities unaffected (likely more than 100%). I'll give some numbers just in case it makes my point clearer: Let's assume that equilibrium temeprature change to current forcing is 1.2ºC. Then, Eg.1: standard (most likely value) estimate of forcing and sensitivity is: Net forcing = 1.6 W/m2 --> Climate sensitivity = 1.2 / 1.6 = 0.75 (W/m2)−1 (that means ΔT = 3.7*0.75 = 2.8 ºC for CO2 doubling) Eg.2 Weaker aerosols (less negative forcing) -> higher net forcing: Net forcing = 2.4 W/m2 --> Climate sensitivity = 1.2 / 2.4 = 0.5 (W/m2)−1 (that means ΔT = 3.7*0.5 = 1.9 ºC for CO2 doubling, with human contribution being the same) -
rhjames at 08:48 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
I think the last paragraph says it all, regarding clouds and negative/positive feedback. Some people think positive will dominate, and others suggest negative. The fact is, we don't know. Until there is some sort of actual data, or scientific evidence, we can't make any long term claims, other than "it's possible" of "our assumptions suggest". To suggest that there is "scientific consensus" on this is irresponsible, and immediately throws the whole concept of AGW into doubt. We need to stick to the facts, and call it how it is. If there's doubt, say so. I don't want to read headlines like "sea levels to rise by 1m by 2100". I want to read that a model, with many yet to be substantiated assumptions, suggests that this is a possibility. Then I'll respect the story. -
Albatross at 08:44 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
This whole episode is putting me off Curry. Sad really, because I so used to love curry. -
Phila at 08:41 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
"Either I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it." Translation: "Given that AGW is a hoax, I am either smarter or more honest than the rest of the world's climate scientists. My natural modesty compels me to suggest that I'm more honest, but I'll let the reader be the judge." In light of these developments, I have decided to take my message to the people. Translation: "Since the scientific community has rejected my work, I will now spoonfeed it to people who lack the knowledge, skills and training to judge its competence and accuracy. I fail to see anything wrong with this plan." If Spencer put as much work into science as he does into shoehorning logical fallacies into his rhetoric, articles like this one might not be necessary. -
pbjamm at 08:18 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@758 "This means that over the years the amount of government funding climate change research has received has increased." I dont think that anyone would dispute that Climate Change research has been receiving an increasing amount of money over the last 30 years. This is logical if it is considered an important topic worth researching. Why do you bring it up? What relevance does it have to the conversation we are having? You may also want to look into the vast increase in Space and Astronautics funding since the 1920s. -
dhogaza at 08:15 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Also, she doesn't claim to be expert on these subjects, she just knows everyone else is wrong. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:08 AM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damorbel I asked: "Do you agree that heat energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer object? " Instead of giving a direct answer (yes or no would be a good start), you wrote: "My #382 explains about how heat energy is tranferred and how it happens. You appear to have a problem with #382, could you make it just a little clearer what it is?" which doesn't actually answer the question. I don't have a particular problem with what you had written, other than that it was avoiding giving a direct answer to a direct question. "You say 'just sufficient for the first body to maintain its temperature'. But how does it do this (keep the first body at 273K)?" If the heater is producing heat at the rate that the black body 273K radiates heat, it will stay at the same temperature as energy in = energy out. It doesn't need a regulator to achieve that. So can you just give a direct answer to the question, what will happen to the body in the shell if it is heated by a heater providing the same amount of energy required to keep the first body at a constant temperature. -
NQuestofApollo at 07:35 AM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Sorry Moderator, but I have to respectfully disagree with the deletion of my post. If Daniel is going to bring up the amount of money being spent by Big Oil, he is the one bringing politics into the discussion and I don’t see why I don’t have the right to respond. How is it that you let a comment stand about millions being spent by the oil companies, but complain about comments referring to the billions spent on the AGW?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Read DB's comment again. His mention of fossil fuel industry spending is incidental to the point of the comment. Best advice: Stick to the topic, stay out of politics, stop wasting everyone's time complaining about moderation. -
damorbel at 07:19 AM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #383 Dikran Marsupial You wrote:- " I can see you are unwilling to discuss the science and want to bog the discussion down with pointless pedantry after I had already altered my terminology to suit you (from "flow" to "transfer"). Suit yourself" I would like to suit you so perhaps you could explain what part of #382 is 'pointless pedantry'? Your comment is rather dismissive of what is necessarily short on detail. Re #387 Dikran Marsupial You wrote:- "Do you agree that heat energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer object? " My #382 explains about how heat energy is tranferred and how it happens. You appear to have a problem with #382, could you make it just a little clearer what it is? Re #377 You wrote:- "Now put an identical heater in both bodies, each supplying the same amount of heat energy - just sufficient for the first body to maintain its temperature. What happens to the temperature of the inner body within the shell? " The 'body in the shell' is the 2nd body - right? In #373 you wrote "The shell is maintained at 272 degrees Kelvin" - You ask "What happens to the temperature of the inner body within the shell?" When you put the same heater (in the 2nd...) as gives - what? You say 'just sufficient for the first body to maintain its temperature'. But how does it do this (keep the first body at 273K)? Is it 1/a constant temperature heater, regulating its output to maintain 273K? or 2/does it deliver the same power to the 2nd body as the 1st? The two cases are very different. The matter is complicated because you said (in #373) "The shell [tound the 2nd body] is maintained at 272 degrees Kelvin." The simplest case is /2 because the shell temperature is defined at 272K. In this case the temperature of the body inside the shell would rise somewhat according to the thermal resistance of the 1mm gap, which is something I am leaving to you. I am really interested as to why you put this problem together, as yet I cannot see why. I am waiting for your explanation. -
NQuestofApollo at 07:13 AM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
But, Daniel’s comment “Fossil fuel interests spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the US every year to lobby against any controls on fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Vast riche$ await anyone who can scientifically break the chain of evidence & show the AGW is a non-worry” was not political? I was specifically addressing that comment, which you allowed to stand. Furthermore, my reference to Al Gore contained absolutely no opinion – only fact.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Al Gore is not a scientist; nor are Sec of State Clinton and Pres Obama. Comments regarding money spent on legitimate research into alternative energy sources are off-topic. Comments regarding who stands to gain financially through investments in technology are indeed opinion. Come on, NQA, there's plenty to discuss here without going off the reservation. -
Kevin C at 07:08 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Alexandre, Dana: I'm a novice so this is probably wrong, but wouldn't a increase in albedo due to clouds cause energy to be reflected, not absorbed and re-emitted? In which case the increasing output would be as short wave, not long wave radiation? (Or does albedo cover both reflection and absorbtion/re-emission?) -
hank at 06:57 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
http://www.google.com/search?q=top+of+atmosphere+255K First hit: meteo04.chpc.utah.edu/class/1020/Lecture2.201009.pdf Start around slide 31. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:53 AM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Re: NQA In addition to muoncounter's valuable counsel above, please also remember this portion of the Comments Policy:No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticize a person's methods but not their motives.
Comments referring to Gore are on thin ice by themselves. If you would care to re-phrase your comment to bring it into compliance with the Comments Policy, I'm sure there are several here who would be more than happy to enjoy the discourse. The Yooper -
RW1 at 06:49 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Actually the Archer model you reference seems to be consistent with White's numbers: 385 W/m^2 x .566 (% absorbed clear sky) = 217.9; 217.9 W/m^2 x 0.333 (% clear sky) = 72.6 W/m^2 385 x .857 (% absorbed cloudy sky) = 329.9; 329.9 W/m^2 x 0.666 (% cloudy sky) = 219.7 W/m^2 219.7 W/m^2 + 72.6 W/m^2 = 292.3 W/m^2; Archer = 287.8 W/m^2, which is awfully close. -
robert way at 06:40 AM on 28 February 2011Preference for Mild Curry
Remember Dana, Curry is just the "conduit" for disinformation, not the "originator" :P -
NQuestofApollo at 06:37 AM on 28 February 2011Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Moderator - please help me out here. Why does my post keep getting deleted? There are no personal attacks. I am asking a legitimate question about the one-sidedness of a previous post and have included examples and links to support the question. What seems to be the problem?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your recent comments were deleted because they were political. If you have scientific issues to discuss, find the appropriate thread. If you are looking for a forum for ideological rants, look elsewhere. -
RW1 at 06:29 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
"George White's arguments are rife with errors. (There was going to be a third and fourth post on his errors, but the page containing his essential argument is currently down.) One of the most egregious is the halving of the reduction in outgoing radiation due to IR gases. This is very easily verified for your self using the modtran model hosted by David Archer. This is an obsolete model available on the public domain, but it still shows a change in TOA OLR of -3.17 w/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 from the default settings. Note, that is the reduction in the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, it is not "the amount of IR radiation captured" or some other vague term designed to confuse. Based on this model, with 375 ppm CO2, approx 287.8 w/m^2, while with 750 ppm, approx 284.7 w/m^2 leaves the planet." How can 287 W/m^2 be leaving the planet? From Stefan-Boltzman, 287 W/m^2 = 266K (255K expected)? What about Trenberth's transparent window of 40 W/m^2? 287.8 W/m^2 + 40 W/m^2 = 327.8 W/m^2 = 275.5K (255K expected)???? -
scaddenp at 06:28 AM on 28 February 2011It's cooling
You do realise that what models predict is arctic warming but only very slow warming in Antarctica (with some parts getting colder)? Its model verification. Nonetheless, as papers show (even skeptic darling O'Donnell), Antarctica is also warming, and with net loss of ice. -
macwithoutfries at 06:21 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Probably the article should also mention something about the previous huge blunder that we have seen from Roy Spencer - the one in which for a long time he also claimed that his data is correct and the thermometers and other people's models are all a giant conspiracy - a story which was only debunked when external reviewers have inspected his data and found serial error in his data analysis - more details here! -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:19 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Andrew at 766... The George C Marshall institute? That's your source? -
hank at 06:15 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Oh, heck, RW/GW were answered previously e.g. http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=5&t=216&&n=588#41029 and earlier. Sorry, I didn't realized I'd walked into the late stages of a thread-to-thread-to-thread Gish Gallop. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:15 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Andrew... We have this thing called the National Academy whose job it is to advise the government on issues like this. They have clearly stated that AGW is a very serious concern. For the government to ignore the views of the Academy and fail to fund research into climate issues would be gravely concerning. -
dhogaza at 06:04 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
"We’ll see in a future installment of this review that this kind of sloppy modeling work is one of Roy Spencer’s hallmarks." I cringed when I read that. It's too close to the kind of pointless smear language I've come to hate from WUWT or CA
It happens to be true, though ... -
Bibliovermis at 06:02 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Yes, funding for climate change research has increased. That is not in dispute. The reason is. (hmm, this point sounds familiar) Was it: A) Prior research showed the need for more research to better define the scope & severity of the issue. B) A vast conspiracy of politicians and fat cat scientists with the intention of hiding the results of prior research and hoodwinking the general populace. -
WheelsOC at 05:56 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Notice how Spencer avoids the obvious conclusion when setting up this false dichotomy. You can basically paraphase it as, "either I'm right and everyone else is wrong, or I'm right and they don't want to admit it. Either way, I'm right!" You could just be wrong, Dr. Spencer. -
dana1981 at 05:55 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Very interesting post Barry. I look forward to the next two installments! Alexandre #2 - you're correct, there are a number of observational 'fingerprints' which Spencer's hypothesis can't explain, as I discussed here. -
wingding at 05:52 AM on 28 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
If the deep ocean is gaining heat how does this impact climate response time? Does it reduce the rate of warming at the surface we can expect?Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text. -
Bibliovermis at 05:45 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Defendent's lawyer: "Your honor and member's of the jury, there is reasonable doubt to acquit my client on the charge of vehicular homicide because humans died naturally before automobiles were invented. I rest my case." -
Bernhard at 05:18 AM on 28 February 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
May be a good idea to listen to her personally, if you listen carefully, the interview and answers tell it all: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/02/setting-the-record-straight/ Everybody knows what is unfolding, some (actually most uf us) are just trying to keep on going for as long as possible. All the best to all. -
johnd at 05:02 AM on 28 February 2011Prudent Path Week: Polar Regions
adelady at 17:55 PM, re "I'd like to think that there's an oscillation..." Given the number of ocean atmosphere systems that have identifiable phases, is it a matter of physics, or simply logistics when various phases coincide to direct and concentrate certain forces onto or away from a region? For example the most recent conditions being experienced in Australia are due primarily to the coinciding of a La-Nina and a -ve phase of the IOD. The last such coincidence being 1975, prior to that being 1916, both unusually wet periods Australia wide. In 1917 all of south west Western Australia copped about the only period of above average rain since 1890 until now, an area that in all that time normally has been average or below. Is that physics or logistics? Whilst much attention is paid to any unusual or extreme conditions that result from such coincidences, little attention is given to what doesn't happens on the other sides of each of the systems. After all, there is only so much moisture or heat available and if all of either the moisture or heat is to be concentrated into one region, it is a matter of logistics that it will not be available for distribution elsewhere until the systems disengage from the said configuration. -
hank at 04:56 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Oh. My. "co2isnotevil: February 10th, 2011 at 8:53 am "... looking up during the day you will see both primary and secondary IR directly originating from the Sun. This is not ‘back radiation’, but forward radiation from the Sun. Trenberth likes to call this ‘back radiation’ in order to give the false impression that GHG’s radiate this much." (from the joannenova thread still in progress). ____________ 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master ...' -
wingding at 04:40 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
It's an interesting summary, but is there really any need for this sentence at the end: "We’ll see in a future installment of this review that this kind of sloppy modeling work is one of Roy Spencer’s hallmarks." I cringed when I read that. It's too close to the kind of pointless smear language I've come to hate from WUWT or CA. -
RW1 at 04:34 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
"Your problem is not that we are not confirming to how logic or science should work. Your problem is that we are, and for some strange reason, you don't like the answer." Whatever, Tom. I'm not getting the answers to the questions I'm asking. All I'm really getting is declarations. -
krab at 04:30 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
"could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it" is quite revealing. How could such a possibility occur to RS unless he himself has the tendency to "hide" evidence? -
hank at 04:25 AM on 28 February 2011Climate sensitivity is low
Oh. Jan 13, 2011 ... Guest Post by George White. Evolution of an Energy Budget ..... Trenberth's atmospheric window includes 40 W/m^2 coming from the surface and ... joannenova.com.au/.../half-of-the-energy-is-flung-out-to-space-along-with-the-model-projections/ -
muoncounter at 04:15 AM on 28 February 2011Meet The Denominator
JMurphy, "there should be a new name for this sort of convoluted 'logic'- 'Pop logic'" That's catchy, but it would only apply if 'logic' applied to the fundamental dogma of PTism: Demonstrating that A and B were both past mechanisms of change somehow validates skepticism of B as a present 'primary mechanism' of change, regardless of the circumstances of either A or B. In this Bizarro world, the past is the key to the present. Your lightning-forest fire analogy is a good one; here's another: Radiation caused cancer in the past, thus competing with past cigarette-smoking. Hence we justify being skeptical that cigarette smoking causes cancer today. There's no doubt we can flood the pages of SkS with similar nonsensical examples, akin to the debunk this myth exercise, but that would be just as productive as spending 700+ more comments on this thread. You do have to admire this level of illogic, rising (almost) to Alice in Wonderland proportions: `Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly. `I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.' `You mean you can't take less,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take more than nothing.' Having slain this ParTicular Jabberwock, it's time to move on. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:15 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Spencer says... "Either I am smarter than the rest of the world’s climate scientists–which seems unlikely–or there are other scientists who also have evidence that global warming could be mostly natural, but have been hiding it." This is a very revealing statement by Spencer. Why would other scientists hide such evidence? If they could prove it they'd instantly become famous. So, does this mean Spencer actually thinks he's smarter that all the world's other climate scientist? "Seems (very) unlikely." He misses the very very obvious other possibility that everyone else is right and he's just fooling himself with his own theory. Fooling himself and those who choose to echo his position. -
Ed Davies at 03:56 AM on 28 February 2011Australia's departing Chief Scientist on climate change
Bern, >>> from math import pi >>> pi*6371e3**2 127516117977447.06 >>> _*1e3 1.2751611797744706e+17 Total insolation absorbed by the Earth ~= 127 PW. I think you're probably over-estimating by a factor of 1000 or it's 100 PJ/year change due to albedo change or something. -
pbjamm at 03:46 AM on 28 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Poptech, Since the Moderators here are clearly afraid that your insightful comments will expose the fraud of AGW perhaps you should take this fight to your own blog where you have no fear of censorship. There you can keep fighting the good fight against the repressive forces of science and logic. There you are in charge of the comments policy and can filter out all the scientific mumbo-jumbo. -
muoncounter at 03:13 AM on 28 February 2011Prudent Risk
RSVP "the theory of punctuated evolution depends on environmental stress." So we are doing calcite bearing creatures a favor by setting in motion the chemistry that dissolves their shells? Comments like this reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the time scales involved. Environmental changes, even in punctuated equilibrium models, take generations. In the context of the rapid change, associated with punctuated equilibria, the word rapidly is understood to be " ... by geologist's standards". So with a coarse and incomplete fossil record, "a speciation that took 50,000 years would seem instantaneous". Anthropogenic changes to the environment are not on a 'punctuated' time scale. The more appropriate word starts with a C. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:06 AM on 28 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damobel@386 the science in post #382 appears to be merely a continuation of the pedantry regarding "flow" versus "transfer", which is a distraction from discussion of the substantive issue. Back to the thought experiment: Do you agree that heat energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer object? In this case heat energy is transferred from the cooler shell to the warmer inner body, although there is a greater transfer of heat in the other direction, and so the second law of thermodynamics isn't broken as the net transfer is from warmer to cooler body. from 377: Now put an identical heater in both bodies, each supplying the same amount of heat energy - just sufficient for the first body to maintain its temperature. What happens to the temperature of the inner body within the shell? -
arch stanton at 02:59 AM on 28 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Interesting exchange between Dessler, Spencer and Lindzen. (emails are posted as they happen so they appear in reverse chronologic order): http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-is-back-at-least-temporarily.html As an aside - I am having a lot of trouble getting into this website (skepticalscience) at this time. arch -
Alexandre at 23:55 PM on 27 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
My layman's opinion: If climate was responding to cloud coverage in a negative way (more clouds less temperature), it would be due to changes in the Earth's albedo. If the Earth's albedo was causing this warming, OLR would be increasing, not decreasing as observed. Or am I missing something? -
damorbel at 23:55 PM on 27 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #383 Dikran Marsupial You wrote:- " I can see you are unwilling to discuss the science" Um, do you think my #382 is not discussing the science? Momentum transfer? Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics? The relation between momentum and energy? These are the fundamentals of kinetic theory, the scientific basis of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. If I haven't done your 'thought experiment' properly I am really interested to know what I have missed. Please help. -
damorbel at 23:47 PM on 27 February 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #384 Phil you wrote:- "This statement is incorrect." You can find out about photons and momentum here:- Physical properties of photons -
JMurphy at 22:38 PM on 27 February 2011Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Very interesting and informative - thanks. However, I'm surprised Spencer didn't also try the O'Donnell defence, i.e. claim that a reviewer privately suggested certain changes, only then to publically criticise the use of such changes !
Prev 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 Next
