Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 Next
Comments 95151 to 95200:
-
scaddenp at 10:44 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - surely you still dont think that doubling CO2 actually is producing extra radiation at the TOA? (where by definition there is no atmosphere?). Its a EFFECTIVE 3.7W/m2 of rad. This has been explained so many times, I dont know how to make you understand it. -
RW1 at 10:43 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "So, in your estimation the 10 thousand-odd climate scientists working in this field have somehow made some critical error? And all the major scientific organizations (PNAS, etc.) who have made strong open declarations about AGW have all managed come to completely erroneous conclusions? Good question. In short, yes. I think in essence they are mostly guessing and/or only looking for and interpreting data in ways that support enhanced anthropogenic warming because that is what their financiers are more or less looking for them to 'discover'.Moderator Response: [DB] You are making an allegation of impropriety here, which is in violation of the comments policy. Future such comments will be deleted. -
Marcus at 10:34 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
steve anthoney "Funny how my taxes have gone up on the back of global warming." Unless you're living in a mainland European country, I doubt very much that your claim is true-as Governments in every other industrialized Country are very much joined at the hip to the Coal/Oil Industry. Here in Australia, $10 billion per annum of tax-payers money is effectively shoveled into the pockets of the fossil fuel industry-in direct & indirect subsidies-but listen to the politicians *scream* if you suggest giving even 1% of that kind of money to the renewable energy industry. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:32 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @ 189... So, in your estimation the 10 thousand-odd climate scientists working in this field have somehow made some critical error? And all the major scientific organizations (PNAS, etc.) who have made strong open declarations about AGW have all managed come to completely erroneous conclusions? -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - George White has admitted that his own running of the models comes out with an imbalance of ~3.65 W/m^2. That is the difference in energy between what goes into the atmosphere and what comes out. Not half of it, but all of it. The difference is because of (a) increased absorption by CO2, and (b) a rise in the level of CO2 emission, where CO2 density is low enough for IR to escape to space, and due to the lapse rate is actually colder - hence less energy. These numbers are obtained by running line-by-line models (as GW has done), much as numeric integration does for equations without symbolic solutions. For some reason GW doesn't believe his own results, and goes halving them - that's no reason for you to make the same mistake. I would suggest that further discussion of climate sensitivity take place on the Climate sensitivity is low thread, where the data and the discussion on this topic are actually being presented. You are way off topic here. -
scaddenp at 10:25 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Both would also appear that a back-of-the-envelope calculation ignoring a mass of known physics (plus a mass of invalid assumptions) outweighs any calculation where its done better. This the thinking that leads to "bumblebees shouldnt be able to fly". Also, the question as to how long is long enough to distinguish a trend from internal variability is not a matter of opinion - you determine it from statistics. -
RW1 at 10:23 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt (RE: 181), "Out of curiosity, can I ask where you get most of your information on climate science?" I've read a lot of books and papers and thought about it from a whole bunch of different angles, but most of my conclusions and views come from mixing and meshing the behavior and evidence coming from both sides using logic and critical thinking skills. And yes, I have gotten a lot of information from George White. I've taken the time to understand a lot of the work he has done and have spent time watching and observing others try to discredit it only to fail in my estimation. For example, it is claimed around here that the halving of the 3.7 W/m^2 is incorrect because it's already been halved, yet I've asked numerous times for a source documenting the incremental absorption from 2xCO2 is actually 7.4 W/m^2. So far no one has provided it, and I've even searched around myself and found nothing of the sort. These kinds of things reveal things to my critical thinking mind and I then mix and mesh them in with all the other stuff I know. Eventually, I believe at least, I figure out who really knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:21 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 @ 186... That's good. At least you aren't a complete denier. I run into way too many people who try to tell that CO2 has zero radiative properties or hang their hat on the idea that the CO2 effect is saturated. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - Those 'gain' calculations were discussed to the point of exhaustion on previous threads, along with the quite incorrect 'halving' of TOA imbalances. I have no wish to rehash it here - I think you were clearly answered on the earlier thread. The 'gain' you have discussed is inappropriate for climate calculations. Please read the Climate sensitivity is low thread for the peer reviewed work and actual data on sensitivity to forcings. -
Sea level rise is exaggerated
Chemist1 - Glacial isostatic adjustment is a known issue, and sea level rise estimates are corrected for it. Your claims that sea level rise cannot be measured are unjustified; if you disagree, please provide references. -
Prudent Path Week
Chemist1 - Reply on How much is sea level rising, where the topic is appropriate. -
RW1 at 10:09 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RickG (RE: 178), "You would have to overturn a lot of well understood physics to do that." Not really. The physics of GHGs absorption are pretty well understood and quantified, as is the aggregate measured response of the system to forcing power (i.e. the gain of the system). The issue boils down to the net feedback operating on the system. The large amount of positive feedback need for AGW is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. I don't dispute there is likely some effect - just that the amount is too high. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt - Based on our last discussions with RW1, much of his information and approach comes from George White/co2isnotevil's website, which has curious arguments claiming both a low sensitivity to forcings and no anthropogenic influence on climate. It also has unjustified halving of the forcing from CO2 doubling, and an odd 'gain' which he uses to claim that various forcings will have little or no effect. Those topics were covered in great (gah, exhausting) detail on the Lindzen and Choi thread. -
steve anthoney at 10:06 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Hmmm but if you are right about the oceans, then we're still doomed because of the population growth. And no politician will attempt to tackle that one. I'm still a bit sceptical though - why do politicians and media show us pictures of glaciers collapsing into the sea when that's what glaciers do ! Or polar bears standing on icebergs in the summer ! Funny how my taxes have gone up on the back of global warming. I reckon we'll stop using fossil fuels when there's none left.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] If you are interested in ice, see the thread Basic overview of melting ice and comment there. You will find that what glaciers are supposed to do is both 'grow' and collapse into the sea; what we have now is lacking the growing part. But blaming global warming for your tax increase? That's a new one -- and certainly not the topic here. Have a look at Carbon pricing cost vs. benefits. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:03 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Steve Anthoney... The maximum sea ice extent usually comes sometime in late March and continues to decline through the summer months until a low in September. Lots and lots of sunshine up there during that whole period. -
Marcus at 09:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1. You do seem not to understand the difference between a Hypothesis & a Theory, & AGW is most definitely *not* an hypothesis. As Rick rightly points out, it takes a *lot* more to overturn a theory than an hypothesis. Case in point is Evolution. There are plenty of cases which-at face value-seems to "undermine" the basic premise of evolution-yet all these cases really do is force scientists to go out & gain a better understanding of how evolution actually works. The actual theory itself is still completely sound though. Of course, that said, I'm still waiting for you or one of your Denialist mates to actually come up with anything that actually contradicts the Theory of AGW-all I've seen to date though is a lot of strawman arguments about "insufficient data" or playing up year to year variability (which isn't as high as you claim). Go to the back of the class buddy. -
steve anthoney at 09:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
If the minimum ice coverage occurs around September, then looking at the illustration of those globes around the sun, it seems that the ice melts just at the time when the sun is setting for the winter, and it is too late for the sun to have any warming effect on the ocean. -
Bibliovermis at 09:53 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist1, The strength of your conviction is not sufficient to validate your claims. Please provide supporting references. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:50 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... Out of curiosity, can I ask where you get most of your information on climate science? -
Bibliovermis at 09:48 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 (#176), Please read argument #2, Climate's changed before, in the top left corner and ask any questions you have on that thread. Solar irradiance changes have been the primary climate forcing agent over the past few thousand years. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:47 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... There is far less conflicting evidence than you seem to think. To echo RickG, one piece of contradictory information does not put a hole in the theory. Contradictory information generally points to a place where more study is needed to understand what about it is contradictory and why. In order to put AGW in question you'd have to come up with a competing theory that explained all the empirical evidence better. You'd also have to explain why CO2 has less impact than we currently measure and physics predicts. That's a mighty tall order, literally on the level of overturning evolutionary theory. You say, "Can you give me all the details explaining each 100 year period for the last few thousand years?" A great deal of those changes in climate are very well understood. You just don't read about them on skeptic blogs. It's all in the peer reviewed literature. And there is a lot of it. -
Chemist1 at 09:47 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Dana, my disagreements are well supported in peer review literature and textbooks. Are you familiar with GIA?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] For those who might not be familiar, Chemist1 is most likely referring to glacial isostatic adjustment, the process of restoring gravitational equilibrium to land surfaces formerly buried by kilometers-thick ice sheets. The history of this idea goes back to Celsius in 18th century Sweden; it is extremely well-documented. -
steve anthoney at 09:37 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Its not arrogant and nihilistic to look at all the evidence, including evidence which may not support man made climate change, and including for example the strong scientific evidence that multi decadal ocean current oscillations have a large influence on the climate. Also the fact that greenhouse radiation can only warm a few millimetres of the ocean surface. It seems ridiculous to react to slight changes in atmospheric temperature when the oceans have a hundred times the heat capacity. Perhaps its easier for some to draw cartoons of drowning pet dogs than to study the science without political bias. And has anyone answered my question on population growth ? If population doubles in the next 50 years then my efforts to walk to work to save the polar bears will have been in vain !Response: "...including for example the strong scientific evidence that multi decadal ocean current oscillations have a large influence on the climate"
Climate scientists are well aware that ocean cycles affect climate. You make a good point - it's a very good idea to examine what's happening to the oceans as they have a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere (in fact, over 90% of global warming is going into the oceans). So when we take a close look at the ocean, what do we see?
Firstly, we find globally, the oceans are building up heat. This cannot be explained by ocean cycles - it can only be explained by the planet being in energy imbalance. Our climate is accumulating heat:
The pattern of ocean warming provides much information also - we see heat penetrating from the surface into the deep waters in all the oceans of the world. Peer-reviewed research into this warming pattern found "the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system." (Barnett 2007).
-
DonaldB at 09:17 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Arrogance and nihilism seem to be common attributes of many "sceptics"- the ones for whom scepticism means a choice not believe the evidence- "If AGW is real, then I should able to see it, and its consequences should affect me!" -
Jim at 09:07 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Measuring current sea level doesn’t seem to be all that difficult for NASA/JPL: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ Actually this is a quite spectacular site for all the most recent measured data: ice extent, CO2 percent, global temperature, etc., presented on one screen. -
John Hartz at 08:41 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
I believe that your exclusive focus on the single measure of Annual Global Mean Temperature of the lower atmosphere understates the impacts that the increased greenhouse effect driven by mankind's activities has had since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. As we all know, the world's oceans have absorbed most of the additional energy generated. The Earth's climate systems have been "charged" in ways that we are just beginning to observe, measure, and comprehend. -
John Hartz at 08:30 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
The user friendliness of this article would be improved by adding tabs for "Related Articles (posted on SkS) and "Recommended Reading." -
Doug Mackie at 08:24 AM on 21 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
The short urls post has reminded me I have been remiss in not responding here. Some responses: @16 CBDunkerson re oceans soaking up the rest if we stop emitting today. The oceans only absorb because of the difference (disequilibrium) between atmosphere and surface ocean. Crudely simplifying the greater the difference the greater the absolute uptake by the oceans. Problem 1: Climate ‘inertia’. e.g. realclimate Problem 2: Ocean acidification (a focus of my own research group). e.g. the other problem various from drrocket: Incoherent runny bum dribble. Not even sure what you are trying to say. @22 koyaanisqatsi Other commenters are correct; it is not the best idea to get hung up on a single paragraph written for a mass audience compared to the actual data set. When I write a cheque then if there is a difference between the words and the figures then they trust the words because it is easier to make a mistake with figures. Plainly the 1% comes from someone else interpreting the data. I suspect that paragraph is the victim of rounding or that your +oceans interpretation is correct. The paragraph reads as if it has been written by a technical writer as opposed to a mission scientist. I recall a similar discussion years ago with someone who had a dodgy claim and would not accept any rebuttals from peer reviewed journals because they were not authoritative sources like “New Scientist”. Yes, perhaps the paragraph lends itself to misuse by deniers but I take it your friend is similarly critical of denialist writings? -
RickG at 08:24 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: It only takes one piece of conflicting evidence to disprove a hypothesis, but that aside the key is understanding the energy balance in detail and the role of evaporation, clouds and precipitation that drive the feedback mechanism. You would have to overturn a lot of well understood physics to do that. Anthropogenic climate change is not a hypothesis, its a theory. As for the energy balance it is well documented with satellite data. Remember, you said yourself that you only believe in satellite data. There is a paper about Earth's energy imbalance (Murphy 2009) and a discussion about it on this site as well here. Again, just saying you don't believe something doesn't make it so, especially in the face of all the empirical evidence that exists and been shown to you. -
dana1981 at 08:23 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist, you are of course free to disagree, but the statements in the article are supported. Yours are not. -
Chemist1 at 07:58 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
I must disagree with two points: first on sea level rise. There exists no reliable way to detect it and the best available methods show little to no rise Second, GCM hindcasts and projections, have in peer review to be shown to be unreliable. -
RW1 at 07:43 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RickG, "I don't doubt you believe that due to your past posting history completely ignoring all evidence presented to you in favor or incredible cherry picking and conflicting statements. How about presenting the "way too much conflicting evidence" you for anthropogenic climate change. And while doing that, please present it in the proper thread here." It only takes one piece of conflicting evidence to disprove a hypothesis, but that aside the key is understanding the energy balance in detail and the role of evaporation, clouds and precipitation that drive the feedback mechanism. -
RW1 at 07:36 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
pbjamm (RE: 172), "Yes, climate changes, but when it does so it is not random. There are measurable forces that make it happen. If you disagree with the evidence that is presented supporting the anthropogenic cause then please provide an alternative explanation. What do you propose is causing the current change in the climate?" What do you propose caused all the climate change in the past? Can you give me all the details explaining each 100 year period for the last few thousand years? What do you propose changed the climate over the past few thousand years? -
dorlomin at 07:33 AM on 21 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
For any Monckton fans http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/1/fbW-aHvjOgM Potholer54 has a go. -
les at 07:20 AM on 21 February 2011It's cooling
140 Mr Anderson Also read http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm Your welcome. -
les at 07:13 AM on 21 February 2011It's cooling
140 Mr Anderson. I think you will find that you are completely wrong. Next you should read this and if you have anynew, and interesting data or comments, add them in the comment section. HTH. -
Marcus at 07:05 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 "No, it's pretty meaningless. The point is it shows how much the temps can fluctuate from year to year. That's all. " Nope, you shot yourself in the foot, by doing exactly what I said *all* denialists do-tell us x amount of years is insufficient, then try to prove a trend on the basis of a single year or month-as you just did. Of course month to month & year to year data is variable (though not as much as you try to claim), as heat is being exchanged between the air & the oceans, but over several decades a statistically significant, discernible can be seen-& that trend says the planet is warming. Also, if you look at *all* temperature readings-air, sea surface & deep sea-you see a definite build-up in heat that just can't be made to disappear with denialist hand waving! -
Charlie A at 07:02 AM on 21 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
zinfan94 at 15:52 PM on 19 February, 2011: "It might be worth pinging Roger Pielke Sr. on the subject of this post. RPSr made a series of comments on this site last summer, where he claimed that ocean heat content measurements weren't supporting the planetary heating rate expected by AGW. He hinted revisions to OHC and SLR measurements would support his view." See the links in my comment above. The main problem most readers of this blog will have with his comments is that it only uses the most recent instrumentation systems .... Argo and satellites, so the analysis only goes back to around 2004. If we ignore satellites and only use tide gauges and XBT temp measurements, the analysis is quite different. -
RickG at 06:50 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
#171 RW1: I don't doubt the change that's occurring - just the alleged primary anthropogenic cause, which from energy budget/balance standpoint is an incredibly small perturbation. There is just way too much conflicting evidence. I don't doubt you believe that due to your past posting history completely ignoring all evidence presented to you in favor or incredible cherry picking and conflicting statements. How about presenting the "way too much conflicting evidence" you for anthropogenic climate change. And while doing that, please present it in the proper thread here. -
Michael H Anderson at 06:44 AM on 21 February 2011It's cooling
Climategate U-turn No warming in 15 years, from the mouth of Phil Jones himself - NEXT! -
muoncounter at 06:44 AM on 21 February 2011It's cosmic rays
The 'its cosmic rays' crowd should be poised for a big couple of weeks. The recent solar flares (coronal mass ejections or CMEs) have arrived on earth, bringing "waves of ionization." More are coming, as the active far side of the sun rotates our way in the next week or two. See 19 Feb and 20 Feb spaceweather.com for a recap. The WUWT crowd is excited by this news, responding with such gems as "Global Temps should go up? (as middle height tropical clouds do not form droplets see svensmark). Interesting to record the time it takes…" So far, some very nice auroral displays.
-- spaceweather's Aurora gallery
Surface neutron monitors are unimpressed, example here, (approx a -4% change), which is not much compared to this 3x larger event from September 2005. Note these are links to dynamically generated images from the online neutron monitor at Oulu, Finland. These are known as Forbush decreases, as ionizing radiation shields the earth's surface from the normal CR flux. Yes, in another of nature's apparent paradoxes, a solar flare can decrease ground level cosmic ray counts.
And the effect on clouds is ...
-
Charlie A at 06:41 AM on 21 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
#16 Ken Lambert: "How does this paper fit with NOAA chart which shows flat OHC from ARGO 2003-2010 since the step jump of the 2002-2003 period? See here: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ " The Argo graph you show is for the top 700 meters. Preliminary updated information is discussed by Josh Willis in e-mails to Pielke Sr at http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/update-of-preliminary-upper-ocean-heat-data-analysis-by-josh-willis-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Can-unpublished-update%E2%80%9D/ and http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/where-is-the-missing-argo-upper-ocean-heat-data/ ---------------- The very brief summary is: Argo measures about 0.16 watts/meter-squared (referenced to total earth surface, using the same units as top-of-atmosphere imbalance figures) in the upper 700 meters of ocean. Pukey says 0.095+/-0.062 w/m^2 in the deep ocean. (roughly 0.1w/m^2). 0.16 + 0.1 is much less than the 0.6w/m^2 expected by models for top-of-atmosphere imbalance. (0.6w/m^2 is the old Hansen number). In post #12 above, Zinfan uses the 0.9w/m^2 number of later, improved models, which only increases the gap in closure of the energy budget. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - As pbjamm correctly notes, the climate changes; and we know why. It's changing now; and we know why. There are ranges of uncertainties, there are short term (<10-11 year ENSO and the like) variability, but we know what's going on, and the major driver right now is our excess CO2 raising the temperature of the climate. We have good records of the forcings for the last million years or so that have caused long term changes in climate, and aside from CO2 just about all of them are declining right now. It's us, and there's really no reasonable question about it. Denying that we are having a major effect on our climate (which seems to be the gist of your posts) is simply wishful thinking. I'm not dumbfounded by your position - just saddened. -
pbjamm at 06:19 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1@171 "I'm sorry, the planet is very dynamic - it doesn't do anything but change." Yes, climate changes, but when it does so it is not random. There are measurable forces that make it happen. If you disagree with the evidence that is presented supporting the anthropogenic cause then please provide an alternative explanation. What do you propose is causing the current change in the climate? -
RW1 at 06:12 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "You have to step back from the data for a minute and look at all the lines of evidence. It's not just Arctic sea ice. It's not just the satellite data. It's not just ice mass loss in Greenland. It's not just the measured Arctic amplification. It's not just the measured increase in atmospheric water vapor. It's not just... I could go on and on here. There are thousands of lines of empirical evidence that show quite clearly that what we believe is happening is actually happening. And yet, you still cling to the few anomalies to the massive amount of evidence we do have." I'm sorry, the planet is very dynamic - it doesn't do anything but change. I don't doubt the change that's occurring - just the alleged primary anthropogenic cause, which from energy budget/balance standpoint is an incredibly small perturbation. There is just way too much conflicting evidence. "Honestly, I'm just trying to understand why this is. I'm completely dumbfounded." I can see that. -
muoncounter at 05:38 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob, That's exactly where I was heading when I recalled this is an ice thread, not a temperature thread. Some months ago I posted a graph comparing UAH to GISS temperatures; they do not have the same values (no surprise there), but over the life of the satellite data, their trends are indistinguishable. To use the language of high school algebra: If satellite = good and surface duplicates satellite, then surface = good. As far as 30 years being insufficient to determine natural variability, that's one man's opinion. To misquote, "the trend's the thing." -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:33 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 said... "What exactly is so blatantly obvious? That there's clear downward trend in Artic sea ice since the start of the satellite record, or that anthropogenic global warming is the cause of the decline? The former is not in dispute." You have to step back from the data for a minute and look at all the lines of evidence. It's not just Arctic sea ice. It's not just the satellite data. It's not just ice mass loss in Greenland. It's not just the measured Arctic amplification. It's not just the measured increase in atmospheric water vapor. It's not just... I could go on and on here. There are thousands of lines of empirical evidence that show quite clearly that what we believe is happening is actually happening. And yet, you still cling to the few anomalies to the massive amount of evidence we do have. Honestly, I'm just trying to understand why this is. I'm completely dumbfounded. -
Stephen Leahy at 05:23 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
#167 Absolutely Agree. Huge waste of time w RW1. Can't believe the thread lasted this long. -
Albatross at 04:57 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
In repsonse to anther poster who said (correctly) that "The trend of summer minima is down and accelerating." RW1 responded with, "How can it be accelerating when the past 3 years have seen a larger summer minimum than the record low of 2007?" I and others have pointed out that the loss of summer Arctic sea ice loss (and volume) is accelerating, when called on this RW1 then says: "I'm not disputing that the documented period we have shows a downward trend, but 30 years is hardly enough data to show whether this is anything significant or just random noise of natural variability." Wow, quite the contradiction and shift of the goal posts. Given that the trend over 32-years is statistically significant, that shows that we do have sufficient data to extract a signal from the 32 years of data. Regarding natural variability, RW1 needs to familiarize himself/herself witht he latest research. For example Polyak et al. (2010) conducted a meta analysis of Arctic paleo records and concluded that: “The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.” I have lost cout of how many times RW1 has been shown to be wrong or guilty of misleading or parroting misinformation on this thread. I do not see any interest by RW1 to learn or accept the facts presented to him/her-- I think we all know what such behaviour is called..... I hope that people following this thread see for themselves the contempt that so-called "skeptics" hold for the science and for facts, and how uninterested they are in learning. -
Bernhard at 04:50 AM on 21 February 2011I want to earn my future, not inherit it
Caroza You said: (I frequently find myself feeling grateful for being 49 and not having children, because I won't have to see the worst of it, which is an awful way to think). With GW and all the "Peaks" coming so clearly to my understanding, I keep asking myself why I did not stick to what I thought when I was 15/ 16: I do not want to have children in a world like this". Now, I recently turned 50. But I do have young grown up children I love dearly and I will (and them and all the rest of us) have to see the worst of it. I truly understand your "awful" way to think.
Prev 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 Next
