Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 Next
Comments 95601 to 95650:
-
Marcus at 13:19 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"It supports skepticism that CO2 is a primary driver of the current climate." That is the biggest load of ignorant hokum I've ever heard. That claim is as ludicrous as saying "forest fires have largely been caused by lightening strikes in the past, therefore it supports skepticism of arson". Total & utter *hogwash*-but still pretty much what I've come to expect of Denialists like yourself. To claim that such things *strengthen* your argument just prove how utterly deluded you are! -
Marcus at 13:16 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Incorrect, I have irrefutably demonstrated that his denominator is based on erroneous results." Nope, only in your own mind-& in the Denialist Universe you inhabit. Out here in the real world, you've still largely missed the point "That is because it is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal." Cato Journal, like E&E, has *proven* low standards when it comes to the publication of papers that "tow the party line"-due to their funding links with the Coal & Oil industries (you don't bite the hand that feeds you). Good & Bad are definitely *not* a subjective terms either-as many fail the basic evidence test that should be the foundation of any published paper. Many papers published in E&E fail Science 101, yet still get published as long as they say "Climate Change isn't real". If you're going to rely on relatively obscure journals-with poor Peer Review Standards & a clear ideological agenda-just so you can pad the list out a little bit more, then it doesn't say much for the strength of your list. -
muoncounter at 13:13 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter: "ask how long the ice will last. Please." We have, several times. See the thread on Ice free Arctic, among others. I don't understand why you seem to be insisting that Arctic ice isn't in jeopardy. You've agreed that the Arctic is warming precipitously and that Arctic ice melt is increasing. There's no need for any specific heat calculation; the figures in the ice-free thread -- and several other threads on the same topic -- show very clearly how long the ice will last. The Flanner thread and papers linked on that thread amplify this topic with the increase in heat absorption of open Arctic waters vs. ice. -
Peter Offenhartz at 13:08 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Please, please, no more doomesday scenarios! Here's the math that no one will do: The total ice volume is about 40 x 10^6 GT. The rate of melting is currently well under 1000 GT per year, or 0.001 x 10^6 GT/yr. (I hope this time I've done the math correctly!) -
angliss at 13:03 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Wow. 509 comments. I personally recommend to everyone still debating Poptech take leave of the argument - you have better things to do with your time, and Poptech simply isn't worth your effort any more. If he ever was.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Worthy advice all should heed. -
muoncounter at 13:00 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT: "Papers are not included or removed from the list based on .. if they ... support skepticism of AGW alarm." Then by your own words, you must remove the three papers discussed here, as they do not support 'skepticism' in any way whatsoever. Failure to do this is admission of total and complete hypocrisy. -
RickG at 12:50 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @ 501: Please provide the objective method to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Its very simple. A qualified peer reviewer is one who publishes regularly in the field he is reviewing (climate science) with a reputation of scholarly works to his/her credit that stand the test of time. Most of the journals you list do not meet that criteria. -
mclamb6 at 12:39 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech at 503: The authors of the papers in question have the scientific background and disagree. Except when they don't, such as Pielke, in which case you ignore them in favor of your own "context". -
mclamb6 at 12:38 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
You do realize that with your ridiculous mantra that nearly everything is "subjective", you are basically arguing for scientific nihilism. And why should anyone respond to any of your inquiries, when your response will simply be "I disagree" or "Incorrect"? -
Riduna at 12:36 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
It is important to distinguish between the East (EAIS) and West (WAIS) ice sheets, the latter lying to the west of the Trans-Antarctic Mountains. The EAIS is a land based ice sheet loosing mass in a similar way to the Greenland ice sheet. The WAIS covers the land of a far-flung archipelago but is predominantly a marine ice sheet resting on the seabed. The WAIS is therefore far more susceptible to melting by coming into contact with the warming waters of the Southern Ocean and warmer currents flowing directly on to the ice from equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean. This is why it is now loosing ice at a rate almost three times greater (132 Gt/annum) than the much larger EAIS (54 Gt/annum). Contact of warmer seawater with the WAIS face rising from the seabed makes it particularly vulnerable (far more so than EAIS or Greenland) to erosion of its footing. Were this to occur, large areas of the marine ice shelf could, in a relatively short time, loose contact with the seabed and become floating ice. This would result in more rapid sea level rise than present levels of ice loss from land based ice sheets. Sorry if this sounds nit-picking. -
Berényi Péter at 12:34 PM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
OK, let's have a look at it. First of all Stefan–Boltzmann law is I = ε·σ·T04 (1) where I is power flux (W/m2), ε is emissivity (a number between 0 and 1), σ = 5.67×10-8 Wm-2K-4 is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and T0 is surface temperature. Now, effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (-18°C) while its average surface temperature is 288 K (15°C). I = σ·Teff4 (2) From (1) and (2) for its equilibrium effective emissivity we get ε0 = (Teff/T0)4 ~ 0.61 (3) If some more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, effective emissivity is decreasing, so it should be compensated for increasing surface temperature to preserve radiative balance. I0 = ε0·σ·T04 = (ε0-Δε)·σ·(T0+ΔT)4 (4) From (4) we get Δε = 4·ε0/T0·ΔT (5) whenever ΔT is small compared to T0. On the other hand we have ΔT = λ·5.35·log(C/C0) (6) as above, where λ is the equilibrium climate sensitivity while C and C0 are the current and preindustrial CO2 concentrations (measured in ppmv) respectively. From (5) and (6) we have the effective emissivity anomaly as a function of climate sensitivity and CO2 concentration. Δε = λ·21.4·ε0/T0·log(C/C0) (7) Forcing (relative to preindustrial CO2 level) due to CO2 induced effective emissivity anomaly is ΔF = λ·21.4·ε0·σ·T03·log(C/C0) (8) As a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance implies a monthly heat accumulation of 0.134×1022 J in the climate system, monthly heat accumulation due to CO2 forcing is ΔQmonth = λ·2.87×1022·ε0·σ·T03·log(Cmonth/C0) (9) We have monthly data (some interpolated) for atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii since March, 1958. In (9) λ is unknown, but all the other terms are given. Therefore it makes sense to define Dmonth = 2.87×1022·ε0·σ·T03·log(Cmonth/C0) (10) ΔQmonth = λ·Dmonth (11) As vector D is given (λ is an unknown constant), we can write ΔQ = λ·D (12) Of course actual heat gain is less than that. The surface is also warming and radiative losses increase with the fourth power of temperature. It's easy to verify that heat flux anomaly due to a temperature anomaly ΔT is ΔI = 4·ε0·σ·T03·ΔT (13) Fortunately we also have average surface temperature anomalies at NASA GISS (from January, 1880). Using the same conversion as above, we can define R, monthly heat loss due to a temperature anomaly as ΔRmonth = 0.536×1022·ε0·σ·T03·ΔTmonth (14) Heat retained by the greenhouse effect either goes to space or is sequestered into the ocean. Fortunately we also have some data regarding OHC (Ocean Heat Content). It is only the heat content of the upper 700 m, but as it is reasonably sure change of heat content of the entire climate system is proportional to this quantity, let the coefficient be μ. Therefore we have vector S, although this one is only with a quarter year resolution. Of course we can resample D and R to match it. Due to unknown offsets the balance is still not perfect, there is also an unknown linear function of time, so we can write λ·D - R - μ·S = α·t + β (15) where t is time, α and β constants. It is only true as far as ASR (absorbed Shortwave Radiation) is constant. Of course it is not, but if it has no trend, it has no influence on climate sensitivity calculations. So the next task is to choose λ, μ, α and β that minimizes (λD-μS-αt-β-R)2. It is basically a system of linear equations with four unknowns and if solved, it comes out as λ = 0.64. This climate sensitivity corresponds to 2.37°C equilibrium warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration. However, μ = 0.08 is deep below 1, which is impossible. It would mean all the heat stored in the climate system is only 8% of what is found in the upper 700 m of oceans. Not only there is no missing heat, but a lot of excess heat is measured. Therefore OHC before mid 2003 (large scale deployment of ARGO floats) is almost certainly mismeasured and the flat curve seen since is typical of the entire epoch. It means heat exchange between the atmosphere and ocean is either very slow or the surface warming is actually much less than measured. λ is sensitive to surface temperatures (not so much to OHC), so if there is an UHI effect of about 0.25/doubling of local population density even in rural areas, equilibrium climate sensitivity is less than 0.5. It would mean the pipeline is practically empty, which is consistent with the low effective heat capacity or very long response time of oceans found above (I mean long, compared to the half century for which we have reliable CO2 data). If soot is also considered, it leaves even less room for a high value of λ, as it increases ASR and does have a trend. -
PT_Goodman at 12:21 PM on 17 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Isn't the percentage of CO2 retained in the atmosphere increasing. I took the NOAA MLO CO2 annual increments from 1959 to 2010, calculated the percentage change for each year from 1960 to 2010, graphed that, and found that percentage of CO2 retained in the atmosphere (given here as 43%) is generally increasing during that period. Does this mean that the ocean and land CO2 sinks are becoming less effective?Moderator Response: [DB] Perhaps I've missed it, but I have not seen anything conclusive yet (there is some natural variability in the uptakes). It is indeed being studied closely, for that event is what some models have indicated in a Business-As-Usual situation. -
michael sweet at 12:18 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter, It is not necessary for all the ice to melt (that would raise sea level about 75 meters) for it to be a disaster. If Greenland alone melted it would raise sea level 7 meters and put millions of people out of their homes. If half the ice in Greenland melted much of the sea level rise would occur since the bowl in the middle of the island would need to still be full of ice. That would require 0.1C of ocean heat, which has already occured. If you assume a 10 year doubling time for ice melt it is 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100. That would put Miami and 8 million other people out of their homes in Florida alone. For me that is a disaster. How much sea level rise do you need for it to count as a disaster? Of course the data indicates a doubling time of around 6 years at present. How do you feel about that for the next 50 years? -
RickG at 12:16 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
497 Poptech: Peer-Reviewed: (Defined) of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication. With that definition perhaps your tally of 850 should go to zero. How many of those papers are peer reviewed by actual publishing climate scientists? You know, actual experts in the field. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:50 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Interesting to note that in Poptech's first post on this article he states... " Simply searching for phrases in Google Scholar will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 21,000 from the Guardian, 84,000 from Newsweek and 140,000 from the New York Times. " I tested this. Searching the phrase "climate change" turns up: NYT... Zero articles Newsweek... Seven articles Guardian.... Three articles The only way you get the numbers he states is to leave word or phrase field blank. What were his words? Oh yeah... "Epic fail." -
Alex C at 11:45 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Huh, not sure why I said 0.8W/m^2. Perhaps I was thinking of the temperature rise realized currently, or mixed up the forcing expected from modern CO2 levels which is 1.8W/m^2..... From the "CO2 Effect is Weak" argument the forcing from a doubling of CO2 (climate sensitivity) is 3.7 W/m^2. dF = 5.35ln(C/C_i); 5.35ln(2) = 3.7 The forcing during the MWP was, again, much lower. Sorry about the confusion, hope that clarified some. -
Alex C at 11:37 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Not to imply that the MWP was due to CO2 - just trying to provide something to compare the forcing of that time period to. If I'm not mistaken, the climate sensitivity would be about 0.8 W/m^2, and the forcing during the MWP was about 0.3 W/m^2. In other words, it does not measure up to the customary representation of climate sensitivity. -
Alex C at 11:35 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
pbjamm: mozart is referring to Figures 1 and 2, which are not labeled in-figure for the temperature scale (though it is stated below that the tick marks are separated by a degree Celsius, in the Figure 2 description - I think mozart was aware of this). There are no intermediate ticks, so it's hard to quantify very accurately just by looking at it. But to explain the point he brought up, sort of repeating Dana's response, the climate sensitivity is usually represented as a temperature response to a doubling of CO2. CO2 levels were most certainly not double 280ppmv for any extended period of time during the MWP, so the temperature rise would not have gone up because of them - also, now more along the lines of what Dana said, the overall forcing change during that time period was not particularly high, when compared with the amount expected from a doubling of CO2. -
adelady at 10:39 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Resources running out? Long before they 'run out' there would be clear signals of problems. All you need to do is look at birthrate changes during the great depression. The birthrate dropped below replacement rate in the USA and several other developed countries. I'm very much afraid that my preferred population strategy - education of girls and women - may well be overtaken by events. The nastier economic and social issues, the famines that Ann referred to combined with the dislocations from advancing high tides and salinity of groundwaters will severely impact family formation and birthrates. Education of women and girls is still a good strategy, but it may not be the peaceful, gradual effect that I'd prefer on population numbers. -
Bibliovermis at 10:24 AM on 17 February 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
expect a bigger change between the second and third rates if we'd added something to this experiment Ceteris paribus. ("All other things being equal or held constant.") Solar activity was not identical so such a direct comparison is not applicable. Solar activity was decreasing during the period 1975-2005 and increasing during the period 1910-1940, except 1920-1930 (roughly rounded). Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? -
WSteven at 10:12 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
@dana1981: Okay, point 1 I think I did pick up on somewhat. Points 2 and 3 I should have picked up on as on rereading the article they were actually fairly explicit. That's what I get for trying to carefully read an article when I'm busy. :-) Thanks for clarifying. @NewYorkJ: I've actually read that article. I'll probably make a point or reading it again plus the links in Dana's article. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:11 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Perhaps we should take a closer at that list after all, seems like there is a lot of stuff that does not even meet PT's declared criteria. This could be amusing. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:09 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Interesting. Poptech, how does the 1996 Mavromichalai et al. paper cited above support skepticism of AGW alarm? -
dana1981 at 09:47 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
mozart - you can't determine sensitivity without knowing what the radiative forcing over the period in question was. If the forcing was small, a small temperature change doesn't tell you that sensitivity is small. I recommend you click the final link in the article and read the associated article. -
bigbols at 09:32 AM on 17 February 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
While Monckton's statement is not precise, is it worth noting that between the three warming rate periods described in the graph, the largest change is between the first two? The warming rate from 1975 to 2005 is 0.34°C higher than the period 1910 to 1940. Maybe we caused that, maybe we didn't. How can we explain the much higher rate increase of 0.55°C between the first and second periods, if not caused by us? I'd expect a bigger change between the second and third rates if we'd added something to this experiment, but the biggest change comes between the period we had no influence on...or am I wrong? -
pbjamm at 09:24 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Mozart@13 I do not understand to what you are referring. The axes are clearly labeled with year and Temperature Anomaly (DegC wrt 1961-1990. -
Peter Offenhartz at 09:12 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@michael sweet(34) Whoops! My error. You are right about the 2 degrees. 2.4, actually. Still a lot more than the current <0.1. But in any case look at the melt rate vs volume. -
mozart at 09:12 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Hard to tell because of the non labelling of the axes, but it would appear from the current( black line) data....that we are looking at a 1000 year record with variability of less than one degree centigrade. Calling climate sensitivity low, hardly seems like a leap. -
Peter Offenhartz at 09:06 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@michael sweet (34) You did the math but you incorrectly assumed the Antarctic is ten times the size of Greenland. Nope. Total ice volume is about 3% of total water volume. Multiply 1.3 billion gigatonnes by .03. Now take the 334 kJ and the 4 kJ. See what I mean? Takes a lot more than 2C. But that wasn't my main point. Look at the annual melt rate. Look at the total volume. Ask how long the ice will last. Assume any melt acceleration you like. Yes,yes, the increasing melt rate is a symptom of global warming. No argument. But ask how long the ice will last. Please. @muoncounter(35) The trouble with the "house on fire" analogy is the rate of heat transfer. But I think you know that. Heat transfer along the earth's surface is relatively efficient. -
dana1981 at 08:40 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
WSteven, this article is about the myth that the IPCC 'disappeared' the MWP, as the introduction states. I would summarize the article thusly: 1) The IPCC never said that the average global temperature was hotter during the MWP than today. 2) As more temperature reconstruction studies were done, the IPCC incorporated their results, which showed that today's global temperature is higher than the MWP peak. The IPCC has been very clear and explicit about this. 3) Arguing for a hotter MWP is also arguing for higher climate sensitivity. There are some other minor points I touched on, like the fact that the MWP was mostly hot at high latitudes, but to learn more about that you'll have to click the links (there's a reason I provide links!). MattJ - I suggest you work on making your criticisms more constructive. -
muoncounter at 08:19 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter: "the "slowing" I refer to has kicked in a long time ago. Global warming would be much faster if it were not for the vast volume of ice holding things back." I can see that working for Antarctica, as perhaps a reason the southern hemisphere is not warming as fast as the northern. I liken it to a house with the attic on fire; it's still pretty cool in the basement. And I think we agree that once the Arctic goes to minimal ice, things will be much worse. But the increasing melt rate of Arctic ice is a symptom of global warming, so I don't think one can say the ice is 'holding things back'. -
NewYorkJ at 08:15 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
WSteven, I'm not sure I'd describe it that way. There's some evidence for MWP in other regions, with most areas warmer than the LIA, but with varying degrees of magnitude. The north Atlantic and southern Greenland were particularly warm. There's also evidence of a la Nina-like pattern, with relatively cooler waters in the tropical Pacific. Was There a Medieval Warm Period -
muoncounter at 07:49 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Here are two papers from the list's 'cosmic rays' section that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change; the phrase does not even appear in the text. The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, Cosmic Rays, and Ice Age Epochs on Earth (New Astronomy, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 39-77, January 2003) Nir J. Shaviv Ice Age Epochs and the Sun’s Path Through the Galaxy (The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 626, Issue 2, pp. 844-848, June 2005) D. R. Gies, J. W. Helsel The ice age epochs in question in each paper are on the million year (Myr) time scale. That's why they're called 'epochs,' a word specifically used in geology to denote a longer period of time than what we normally refer to as an 'ice age'. Another: Hale-cycle effects in cosmic-ray intensity during the last four cycles (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 246, Number 1, March 1996) H. Mavromichalaki, A. Belehaki, X. Rafios, I. Tsagouri This paper is about cosmic ray dynamics in the heliosphere; the abstract makes no mention of earth climate. None of these papers support any form of AGW skepticism, 'alarm' or phobia. It is not sufficient to simply gather papers with the words 'cosmic rays' in their titles and assume that they support the unsubstantiated Svensmark-style hypotheses. We now see concrete proof that '850 papers supporting skepticism' is another one of those malleable phrases that must have an alternate PopTechian definition. -
JMurphy at 07:40 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Another charming paper that gives the game away by its very title : The greenhouse effect: Chicken Little and our response to global warming, (Journal of Forestry, Journal Volume 87, Number 7, pp. 35-39, 1989) by Patrick J. Michaels (again !) Again, no wonder he had to go to the Journal of Forestry... Now, how many of the many thousands of papers that agree with the consensus view, have the word 'alarm' in the title ? It's not even worth checking, is it ? -
BillyJoe at 07:35 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
fydijkstra: "My prediction for 2030: 1.5 degree below the 2010 level, and all years from 2030 to 2040 will be cooler than the past ten years." What was that saying about those who do not know that they do not know? Charitably we might say that they have an over confidence in their abilities. Less charitably, we might say that they exhibit an arrogance of ignorance. -
MattJ at 07:34 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
@WSteven- I couldn't figure out the answers to all those on a first read, either. The article is in serious need of a rewrite, as this lack of clarity illustrates. Remember people: our target audience does NOT have the patience to work hard to learn what they do not want to know in the first place. Monckton is very skillful at exploiting this factor, we are not being so skilled. That, BTW: is why Monckton doesn't have to care that he is contradicting another of his 'skeptic' arguments. He knows his target audience neither knows nor cares. -
WSteven at 07:30 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
I have to admit, it took me a couple of careful reads to absorb this article. So, just to make sure that I'm clear on this: 1. The MWP was an event localized to the more northerly latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. 2. The MWP was above average globally for that period, but not drastically. 3. Todays average global temperatures top those of the MWP. Correct me if I got any of that wrong, or missed anything. -
michael sweet at 07:22 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter, According to Wikipedia, the ocean masses about 1.3 billion gigatons. Greenland masses about 3 million gigatons of ice. It takes about 334 kj to melt one kg of ice and about 4 kj to raise one kilogram of water one degree celcius. I calculate it would raise the ocean about 0.2 C to melt all the ice in Greenland. The Antarctic is about 10 times bigger than Greenland so about 2C to melt all the ice in both ice sheets. I think the ocean can absorb more heat than the ice. -
robert way at 07:21 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
fydijkstra, Eye-balling it is a flawed methodology. Lets consider this though, I used 1981-2010 because it was the 30 year trend period. If I were trying to inflate the trend I would have used 1982 instead because 1981 had a really high anomaly. In fact if I use 1982 I get a trend of 7.2 per century and if I used 1986 to 2010 I get a trend of 8.0 per century... If I use your "cherry picked" 1920-1945 graph I get 3.5 per century. I assume you were trying to pick the coldest time to the warmest over that period so here it is, from 1917 to 1938 it warmed at 7.6 per century. Still less than the present warm period. But what is interesting about picking that time period is you are selecting from the trough associated with a major volcanic eruption and including the recovery in the trend. Regarding your other commentary, the NAO is not the key oscillation for determining the warmth of the Arctic, try the AMO which is well established to contribute to Arctic warmth (Chylek et al. 2009 and Chylek et al 2010). The early century warming had a much stronger positive AMO, extremely low volcanism, high solar irradience and a predominantly positive NAO. All the ingredients one would need for a warm period. Our current warm period in the Arctic is driven by GHG forcing with some contribution from the AMO and the remainder being likely due to ice albedo feedbacks which Flanner et al (2011) have found to be greater than previously understood. -
JMurphy at 07:09 AM on 17 February 2011It's the sun
Johngee, it seems to me that Mr Corbyn is always predicting freezing, Arctic-like conditions and so, like a broken clock telling the correct time twice a day by accident, so does Mr Corbyn. However, he hasn't been doing so good this year, as the following forecasts show : December 09: Wet and windy start giving way to severe Arctic blasts with heavy snow and blizzards in parts. Turning mild or very mild later – a ‘green’ Christmas before colder year end. I recall December being very cold, the coldest in a hundred years or something, but still he got it wrong. Ferocious and dangerous winter weather [for January 2011] Um, quite the opposite actually. [February] Overall much colder than normal with snowy Northerly / Easterly blasts at times Well, not so far, anyway but who is going to rely on that being correct...except by accident ! Jan AND Feb will be unusually cold in Britain, Ireland, & Europe Maybe I've been lucky not to have experienced any of that here in London ? Generally, the tone of his 'scientific predictions' and his website can be surmised from the following text, taken directly from the source : Constant references to 'ClimateGate News' ● ‘Global Warming’ forecasts will fail AGAIN. ● ‘Man Made Climate Change’ is failed science based on fraudulent data ● Gordon Brown & all politicians, please, PROVE IT or DROP IT ● 2010 is the year of the fight for evidence based science & policy ● Carbon Trading & all CO2 reduction schemes must stop. ● ‘Warmers’ flee from challenge to present evidence for CO2 case. ● CO2 theory lies refuted by science fact ● ‘Man Made Climate Change’ scam now ignominiously doomed Hmmm... -
Peter Offenhartz at 07:07 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@muoncounter(32): I agree completely with your comment except to note that the "slowing" I refer to has kicked in a long time ago. Global warming would be much faster if it were not for the vast volume of ice holding things back. What I'd like is for you (and others) to do the math. Have a look at the annual ice melt vs the total ice volume. The result is something of a surprise, I think. -
JMurphy at 06:49 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers, (Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008) by John Stubbles... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is an article printed in that journal. The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming, (Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992) by Patrick J. Michaels... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is a "Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review". And how about this for an unbiased view : Alarmist Misrepresentations of the Findings of the Latest Scientific Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (The Electricity Journal, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp. 38-46, August-September 2007) by Henry R. Linden Tells you right off how he's going to slant that paper, doesn't he. No wonder he had to go to 'The Electricity Journal' ! The more we can see of this little list, the more ridiculous and desperate it becomes. This thread has become a good source which can be used against anyone who dares to bring up this list again. Well done everyone. -
Utahn at 06:44 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech-"First you need to apply a direct comparison to my list and the common argument that is made. It is not whether smoking causes cancer but the exaggerated dangers from SHS. So if you can find 850 peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism that SHS causes cancer or that the likely hood of it causing cancer has been exaggerated. I will immediately accept this as strong support." Why not firsthand smoke? Because you "believe in" firsthand smoke causing cancer, but don't "believe in" secondhand smoke? It's still 850 papers and, according to you, quality is subjective, but those high numbers are "strong evidence" against firsthand smoke alarm, right? I can come up with 850 papers that support skepticism of the "alarm" over firsthand smoke causing lung cancer. Why won't you join my crusade? -
shoyemore at 06:37 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Just as an addendum, it always seemed to me that this guff about the Medieval Warm Period could be easily killed off by consideration of the archaeological and historical evidence of the period. Being form Ireland, I take an Ireland-centric view. For example, I can across the work of a Welsh clergyman Giraldus Cambrensis who visited Ireland about 1185, when Ireland (supposedly) had a climate something like Portugal has now. Geraldus gave a complete description of the country and climate, and what he described reads a lot more like 20th century Ireland than Portugal!! He describes the wet, temperate conditions fairly accurately. Because of the Gulf Stream, some microclimates on our west coast share plants with Portugal and even the Canary Island. So it is not as if exotic plants had no time to get here. Similarly, some deniers have described the fields of wheat, oats and barley the Vikings grew in Greenland. However, the Norse were pastoral farmers. They had small gardens but herds of cattle and sheep were their pride and joy, and hay as a winter feed their most important crop. So you do not need a temperature record to dispove their extravagant claims about the Medieval Warm Period. -
Johngee at 06:34 AM on 17 February 2011It's the sun
Hi all, I have a friend who constantly bangs on about Piers Corbyn and his site ‘Climate Action’. Sadly I have very little time to research Corbyn’s claims. I was wondering if anyone has analysed Corbyn’s weather predictions comparing them to the main weather predictions of places like the met office and also his claims about making money by placing bets on future weather. I know this is about weather but Piers definitely believes AGW is a myth. Could someone look into his claims and perhaps do an article on him. There seems to be very little objective research done on his claims... that I can find anyway. We have Monckton Myths how about Corbyn’s Crocks? I posted here because I know Corbyn thinks its all about the sun. -
muoncounter at 06:28 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter: "total heat storage, via ice volume vs melt rate, has an important effect on slowing global warming" I don't understand why you are focused on this point. We have undeniable evidence that the Arctic ice melt seasons are growing more aggressive. The Arctic is the part of the globe with the most rapid temperature increase. Where and when is this 'slowing' of global warming going to kick in? -
shoyemore at 06:26 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Woops ... for "graces" read "graves" -
shoyemore at 06:25 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
I once came across a weird statement of Mockton that the Viking graces at Hvasley church in Greenland are now embedded in permafrost. That is totally untrue... Hvalsey is actually sinking into soft clay. Hvalsey Church -
dana1981 at 06:12 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Thanks pbjamm! -
Peter Offenhartz at 06:11 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Amplification/correction: When I said "the volume of ice is much more important than the extent" I was writing only about heat capacity/storage. Clearly "extent" is more important than "volume" when it comes to changing albedo. I regret any confusion. My point is solely that total heat storage, via ice volume vs melt rate, has an important effect on slowing global warming; the total volume of ice is HUGE compared to the annual melt.
Prev 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 Next
