Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Next
Comments 98451 to 98500:
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:49 AM on 17 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Re: Sphaerica I, too, watched that airing of The Day The Earth Stood Still (one of the all-time classics of Sci-Fi), and remember the quote well. We are in need this day of our own Michael Rennie and sidekick Gort to police us, as it is self-evident we cannot do it ourselves. Also, I'm in like mind with you regards the IPCC and funglestrumpet's claims. Words to the contrary, repeating a lie spreads the lie; done enough and eventually the lie becomes the "truth". To funglestrumpet's point, worded differently, the IPCC lost a battle of public relations which they did not even know they were engaged in. The disinformation campaign, given wings by those who seek to give equal time to "both sides" (the media and concern trolls), has won over the weak minds of the masses in the US, Canada, Great Britain and Australia. By the time this lot are worried enough to demand action from their leadership, it will be too late. The result? Gaining trillions in profits at the bargain price of billions of lives, payable on demand. A demand note that will come due within our childrens' lifetimes, something that those keeping up with the research know full well but dare not say in public. Blood money on their hands. And no amount of mea culpas and I didn't knows will erase the stains of guilt from their souls. The politics of denial, in-action. The Yooper -
Bob Lacatena at 06:42 AM on 17 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
funglestrumpet,Like it, or like it not, the IPCC acts as a focus for public suspicion of climate science...
Agreed, but I see no reason to feed that invalid suspicion by mis-stating the facts. The IPCC was not in any way even implicated, let alone discredited, by the CRU server hack, and phrasing the problem as if they were is as good as any propaganda the denialists might choose to generate. The IPCC was not discredited by the CRU hack. No one was, but in particular the IPCC was not even involved. -
Bibliovermis at 06:40 AM on 17 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
The IPCC was not discredited by that event, rather people are simply using a (ir)rationalization to justify their beliefs. If the email incident had never occured, they would have some other reason for saying "the IPCC has been discredited." The "war" is demagogy versus science. Those are the two sides that self-proclaimed skeptics keep referring to when they retort "I've seen enough from both sides of the argument. no thanks." That is a direct quote from a friend last week who was referred to this site after saying that snow shows that global warming really isn't happening and "because "they" couldn't make the global warming thing work, they went to climate change". The war is about taking the debate to another level. Monckton is one of the purveyors of myths that are repeated ad nauseam. It is simple to ask leading, fallacious questions and point to cherry-picked intervals that support the preconceived notions of the audience being led by the nose. -
funglestrumpet at 06:36 AM on 17 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
1 "scumbag" was a quotation from another post replying to my original one. 2 I deliberately chose the term ‘directorate’ because I see it as directing the work, not actually doing it themselves. That being the case, they would draft such expertise as they consider necessary. The core issue is scientific, so it would make sense that the directorate be comprised of scientists. I am sure that a considerable number of people would object to many of the people you suggest. Atheists to church leaders, for instance. Restricting it to Nobel Prize winners automatically curtails any argument as to who should be on the directorate. Without that it would take far too long to set the whole process up. You can bet those who do not want any action on Climate Change would do their best to delay the selection process and we must remove any opportunity for them to do so. The most essential thing is that the whole process should raise public awareness of the seriousness of the situation, especially those of the younger generation for obvious reasons. I hope you agree that we cannot carry on as we are with likes of Lord Monckton carrying on unimpeded by proof that his views are discredited. -
Marvin Gardens at 06:35 AM on 17 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Murph at 130 - I looked at the link within SKS, and then went to the original site. The 97% figure represented only 79 scientists? -
Leland Palmer at 06:28 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
Hi muoncounter-It should be no surprise that this book is 'coming soon'. Or maybe it already did; how would anyone know?
:) The whole episode reminds me of the Soon and Baliunas paper published by Climate Research, which led to the resignation of several members of the editorial board of Climate Research. Soon and Baliunas controversy - Climate Research Both are cases of obscure journals claiming peer reviewed status for papers that are outside the mainstream of climate science, for example. The obscurity of the Journal did not prevent the Soon and Baliunas paper being used in Congressional testimony, however, and having an apparently large effect on the legislative process. Just a thought. -
funglestrumpet at 05:35 AM on 17 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
29 Sphaerica. Please re-read my post, especially: "Not because they did anything wrong - we know they didn't." Like it, or like it not, the IPCC acts as a focus for public suspicion of climate science. I have met several people who have cited the email incident as a reason not to trust anything the scientists say on the matter. When one tries to explain along the lines you argue, all one gets is: "They're all in it together (expletives deleted)" or something along similar lines. So I repeat: 'Unfortunately, the IPCC has been discredited by the email incident.' I also repeat that we need to take the debate to another level. If we don't, we are going to spend all our time disproving the denier's 'science' while the climate changes from bad to worse, and the deniers achieve their goal. They will win the war after losing every battle - Bob Dylan. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:19 AM on 17 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
26, funglestrumpet,The “scumbag scientists” attitude will be seen as a dangerous one to adopt.
I don't think this will ever happen, because a distrust of anyone who appears to be more intelligent than you seems to be inherent in the human species. I think it partly comes from the fact that if someone says something you can't even understand, you have no way of evaluating its truth or even weight. It literally seems like magic, and so is something to be feared and distrusted. Since the message is frightening, then the messenger — the scientist — is doubly so. Consider this quote from the 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still (which I happened to catch on TV the other night). This is the version with Klaatu, the alien, threatening to wipe out the human race if they don't learn to stop being so belligerent (as opposed to the 2008 version, where humanity's crime is in raping the planet). The quote below belongs to Professor Barnhardt:It is not enough to have men of science. We scientists are too easily ignored — or misunderstood. We must get important men from every field. Educators — philosophers — church leaders — men of vision and imagination — the finest minds in the world.
-
arch stanton at 05:09 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
JMurphy, at the least it is a useful tool to discern who is the most gullible and desperate. -
JMurphy at 04:51 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
Has SCIRP possibly been set up to discover how gullible/deluded the so-called skeptics are, and to show up how they will cite anything in desperation, no matter how far-fetched ? -
robert way at 04:35 AM on 17 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
For the record NASA uses a different station combination method than the one you outline above. NASA uses the reference station method rather than combining anomalies based upon a base period. The reference station method uses a weighted mean to adjust stations to have temperature sets line up with an initial reference station in their overlapping period. Your method demonstrated here is more similar to what hadley does which is the anomaly method. -
muoncounter at 04:30 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
Here's a good one from SCIRP: Causality and Reversibility in Irreversible Time (coming soon...) It should be no surprise that this book is 'coming soon'. Or maybe it already did; how would anyone know? -
muoncounter at 04:20 AM on 17 January 2011It's not bad
Monsoon-style flooding: Pakistan, Queensland and now there's ARkStorm: California’s other "Big One" ... scientists unveiled a hypothetical California scenario that describes a storm that could produce up to 10 feet of rain, cause extensive flooding (in many cases overwhelming the state’s flood-protection system) and result in more than $300 billion in damage. ... "We think this event happens once every 100 or 200 years or so, which puts it in the same category as our big San Andreas earthquakes. The ARkStorm is essentially two historic storms (January 1969 and February 1986) put back to back in a scientifically plausible way. The model is not an extremely extreme event." -
Esop at 04:15 AM on 17 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#62 (William): Are you saying that there are no anomalously high temperatures on this graph (2010 values)? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Please check it again. Hint: the green line is the average, the red line is the 2010 values. The red line is way above normal through most of December, with the expection of the last few days before New Years, when it went below average, before spiking back to way above average right after New Year. At the warmest, temperatures spiked to 22F above average in the middle of December. December was cold in northern and western Europe (but very warm in southeast, like Bulgaria). At the same time, eastern Canada and western Greenland were were way above average. The blocking high pressure has now faded and Greenland has now cooled to more normal temps and Europe has warmed to temperatures way above average, with heavy rain and massive flooding as the result. BTW, you mention that the La Nina might be the strongest on record. What is the effect of the La Nina on the global average temperature? What conclusion can you draw from the fact that 2010 set a record/tied global average temperature in a year with the possibly strongest La Nina on record, max cooling effect from the deepest solar minimum in more than 100 years, negative PDO and the volcanic eruption at Eyafjella? (the El Nino was short lived and far from record setting) -
muoncounter at 04:05 AM on 17 January 2011Glaciers are growing
Anyone left clinging to the glacier growing myth? Explain the emergence of ice mummies. The discovery of Mr. Pabón’s partially preserved remains was one of a growing number of finds pulled from the world’s glaciers and snow fields in recent years as warmer temperatures cause the ice and snow to melt, exposing their long-held secrets. ... “It looks like the warming trend seen in many regions is continuing,” said Gerald Holdsworth, a glaciologist at the Arctic Institute of North America in Calgary, Alberta. “There are still some large snowbanks left in promising places, and many glaciers of all different shapes, orientations and sizes, so the finds could go on for a long time yet.” -
Paul D at 04:04 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
Also if you scroll to the bottom of the scirp page, there is a list of text links, including Contact Us, About Us etc, that aren't actually links. Anyone, starting a genuine publication would never have dead links like that. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:00 AM on 17 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
23, fumblestrumpet,Unfortunately, the IPCC has been discredited by the email incident.
This is incorrect. The e-mails had nothing whatsoever to do with the IPCC, and had no effect on their credibility. If anyone chooses to interpret the subsequent validation of the CRU at EAU by three separate bodies as "discrediting," that is their (obviously biased), choice, but in any event, the situation involves a handful of scientists working on one very specific aspect of climate research (i.e. one of several independently compiled set of measurements) at one university. It was not the IPCC, and it did not discredit the IPCC, which does not even perform research... they merely compile the research of thousands of climate scientists around the globe into a cohesive set of reports. -
Paul D at 03:59 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
scirp About Us: "Scientific Research Publishing (SRP: http://www.scirp.org) is engaged in the service of academic conferences and publications. It also devotes to the promotion of professional journals. The company has an outstanding work team as well as the widespread third party relations, enables our customers to obtain great satisfactions and convenience in their publications." Apparently based in the US. However the grammar suggests a poor translation from another language. -
sailrick at 03:58 AM on 17 January 2011It's not bad
Quietman @13 "Warmer means more like the world that we evolved in during the PETM (when prosimians first appear) in Asia." "We are from a tropical paradise, no polar ice caps and green pole to pole. Which do we wan't for our offspring? Warm and abundant or cold and starvation?" Things have changed a little in the past 250 million years. Modern humans have been around for what, 250 thousand years? I suppose you could also say we evolved in any climate since life began on earth. But the real point you are missing is the rate of change. Changes are happening in a human lifetime that normally would take thousands of years. And at no time in man's history were there 6 billion people with highly industrialized infrastructure near the coastline, burning a hundred million years worth of sequestered carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere. We are not nomadic hunter gatherers who can pick up our tents and move to higher ground or more hospitable climates. We depend on extensive modern agriculture, much of which is in coastal plains. Bruce Frykman "For the record "peer review" is simply a call for rudimentary error checking - it is not thesis confirming and it is by no means systematic, thorough, or even unbiased" I don't think anyone claims the peer review process is perfect. But I don't think you can claim the IPCC reports have not been thoroughly peer reviewed. "Climate Scientists Defend IPCC Peer Review as Most Rigorous in History" by Stacy Feldman - Feb 26th, 2010 "Nicholls, a professor at Monash University in Victoria, Australia, said the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment report was subjected to several rigorous tiers of review. The study cites over 10,000 papers from the scientific literature, "most of which have already been through the peer-review process to get into the scientific literature." "The report went through four separate reviews and received 90,000 comments from 2,500 reviewers, all of which are publicly available, along with the responses of the authors, Nicholls said." http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100226/climate-scientists-defend-ipcc-peer-review-most-rigorous-history -
muoncounter at 03:57 AM on 17 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
#128: "could just as easily say the natural cycle is coinciding with the massive outpouring of carbon dioxide." Yes, you could say that. As shown here, the really massive outpouring of CO2 took off right after WW2. About 50% of the cumulative (area under the annual emissions curve in that graph) occurred since the 1970's. What 'natural cycle' is this? What causes it? And what evidence do you offer for its existence? See the thread Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming to see how it's done at SkS. Data, analysis and peer-reviewed science trump 'you could just as easily say.' -
JMurphy at 03:30 AM on 17 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Marvin Gardens, have a look at Scientific Consensus -
Leland Palmer at 03:24 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
This paper was published by the International Journal of Geosciences, part of the Scientific Research (scirp.org) family of journals. These are very strange journals, apparently, published by an organization based in China. Some of the papers in these journals have apparently been republished without acknowledging the original date of publication, implying that they are new, when in fact some of them are a decade or so old: World's Strangest Collection of Scientific Journals Nature: Two new journals copy the old These journals have also had people listed on their editorial boards who were there without their knowledge. Some of those on the editorial boards actively disagree with the content of the material in the journals, and gave their permission by mistake, thinking that they were agreeing to be on the boards of journals with a similar name, according to Nature. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 03:23 AM on 17 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Ken Lambert Rather than pointing me to a blog, why not provide links to the primary literature which support all the points you make? And then explain to me why it is okay for Monckton to base his assertions on one article only, with the article in question not looking at all reconstructions. Because this is the whole point of the OP - how to ignore the whole body of evidence in favour of a small piece of the jigsaw that supports your position. -
chrisd3 at 03:03 AM on 17 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
"why don't you guys roll up your sleeves, get to work and start crunching some data?" Same reason WUWT never analyzed what happens if you remove all their "bad" stations from the analysis: The results wouldn't be what they want. So much better to just say, "These stations are bad and they're skewing the results to show warming that doesn't really exist" without ever demonstrating that that is what it actually does. This is the difference between the "skeptics" and the scientists. -
Marvin Gardens at 03:02 AM on 17 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
Archie, just curious as to how many total scientists that 97% represents. Thanks, MG -
Marvin Gardens at 02:59 AM on 17 January 2011Could global warming be caused by natural cycles?
David Horton at #3 - "it's just a natural cycle" that happens to coincide precisely in timing and rate with the massive outpouring of CO2 over the last 150 years, and especially the last 30. The odds of the two things coinciding are astronomical (so to speak)." Not really astronomical. You could just as easily say the natural cycle is coinciding with the massive outpouring of carbon dioxide. We are in a warm phase and human populations, along with other organisms, explode. It stands to reason that we are likely to have high populations during these and the development of technology would occur then. -
Paul D at 02:50 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
I remember years and years ago my lecturer telling us about the data stream from the Voyager spacecraft having a huge number of error correction bits because the signal was so weak and the noise levels were expected to be high. Also the time to request a repeat transmission is very long, so it is preferred to have it correct the first time. The alternative would have been to send the same data hundreds of times automatically so that the base station on Earth could work out the data from the background noise. However it is done, you end up using more bits of data (12 bits of real data may require 24 bits transmitted) than would be the case with a cleaner signal. The point being that to get to the actual signal, you need to sample more data (years in the case of climate) to filter out noise. -
Tom Curtis at 02:45 AM on 17 January 2011The Queensland floods
Ken, What makes cyclones a particularly potent source of rainfall is the massive convection cell driven by latent heat draws moist air in from a very large surrounding area. When the cyclone dissipates, that moist air (which has not already released its moisture in rainfall) procedes to do so. In contrast, a normal rain depression will not have concentrated the moisture in the first place, so while they are potent sources of rain, they do not have the shere abundance of available moisture that an ex-cyclone will carry with it. They do draw moisture into the center from the surrounding area, but having never been as intense, they never draw in as much. I don't think there is any such thing as "over due" in climate science, but certainly the conditions are ripe for a bumper cyclone season this year. -
muoncounter at 02:30 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
MarkR, Love your last paragraph! Very nice image, a guy walking around with a handful of hay saying, 'See? There's no such thing as needles!' Perhaps this author doesn't realize that it would be stunning indeed if the noise actually correlated with the signal. Perhaps this 'journal' is so desperate to produce more fodder for their cattle-in-denial to ruminate over. With this kind of research in their hands, the anti-needle crowd will next conclude that magnets are a part of another science scam. 'You can't trust 'em -- sometimes they attract, sometimes they repel. W@tts up with that?' We touched on the Soares paper in Zombie graphs, starting with this comment. An actual statistical analysis by G.T. Wilson is worth another plug here. He reaches the exact opposite of Soares' conclusion. The most significant and best estimated effect is the dependence of temperature on the rate of increase of CO2, i.e. the change in the current value of CO2 from its value the previous year. -
muoncounter at 02:02 AM on 17 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#53: "thousands of square km can be represented by 3 weather stations when it is obvious that there is great variability in weather stations within a radius of 150 km?" Because the variability within short distances averages out. This is climate, not weather. No one would suggest that two locations 150 km apart have different climates unless they are separated by some huge physical feature. Your posting of a dozen sites doesn't specify that. When I looked at the first of your 'flat' 1950-2010 locations in #45, I saw this, which has a clearly increasing trend since the mid 50's.
At close to 0.2 degC/decade, we do not call it 'flat'. But let's not have a blizzard of of individual station records, this is about trends over large areas.
-
muoncounter at 01:43 AM on 17 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#58: "Averaged out, 2010 was normal." Must be a new definition of 'normal'. The graph in #43 demonstrates clearly that not only is the snow extent trend still down, but 2010 was well below the trend line. But your statement reads as if you think the entire year was normal. The year that's tied for the hottest ever. But maybe you're right and that is the new normal. -
Riccardo at 01:30 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
MarkR it's the same old trick, use changes in something (i.e. derivatives) to mask the long term trend and amplify short term noise. Indeed, he fails to do the simple direct correlation between the two quantities. Really no surprise that noise (variability) in CO2 concentration and noise in temperature are not correlated. Statistics is a useful tool but, quoting from Berliner's comment on McShane and Wyner paper,The problem of anthropogenic climate change cannot be settled by a purely statistical argument. [...] Rather, the issue involves the combination of statistical analyses and, rather than versus, climate science.
-
Riccardo at 01:06 AM on 17 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Berényi Péter the arctic window opens up during winter due to the very low temperatures and dry air. Warming will partially close it, the standard water vapour positive feedback. -
Ron Crouch at 01:02 AM on 17 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
"The code isn't really very useful for serious analysis work, but I think that it might make a good teaching/demonstration tool." Good idea. With emphasis that it is for demonstration purposes. Perhaps make it available on say Freshmeat or SourceForge. That way if you should make refinements to the code you can offer updates. -
William at 00:55 AM on 17 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
In reply to #38. 2010 http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php You provided a link to 2011 high latitude Northern temperatures. Click on 2010. No anomalously high temperatures. Was December in Europe cold or warm? 2010/2011 http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Click on 2010. What are you observing? Why the sudden change in ocean temperatures? Ocean temperature anomaly http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2011/anomnight.1.13.2011.gif How does the temperature at the high arctic change? Why? 1972 http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110114/sc_livescience/currentlaniacouldbestrongesteverrecorded Current La Nina Could be Strongest Ever Recorded Satellite images of the Pacific Ocean reveal La Nina stayed strong in the final two months of 2010. "The solid record of La Nina strength only goes back about 50 years and this latest event appears to be one of the strongest ones over this time period," said Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. -
MarkR at 00:53 AM on 17 January 2011Not a cite for Soare eyes
Please let me know if anyone here has understood how his conclusions come from his analysis. From my understanding I'm absolutely stunned that any journal, even an obscure one, would publish this. My biggest problem was forcing myself to ignore most of the mistakes in it to concentrate on the main point which made this article very difficult to write! -
Ken Lambert at 00:09 AM on 17 January 2011The Queensland floods
Tom Curtis #77 I was looking at Cape Moreton from Caloundra on the Friday before the deluge - and wind gusts of 40-45 knots were being experienced. There was a fairly intense low winding up but it never reached cyclonic wind speeds. It is common for cyclones to have less rainfall when the wind speeds are highest, with the major rainfall occurring after weakening into a more or less intense rain depression. Interestingly enough - the latest Standards Australia Wind Code notes that wind speeds for the Region C up the Qld Coast should be arbitrarily uplifted because of the lack of measurements from Qld cyclones in the last 30 years. The action seems to have shifted to the north west of WA, where Cat 3, 4 and 5 cyclones have been much more prevalent. Qld is overdue for a 1960's-70's (eg. 1967 and 1974) season where 4-5 cyclones cross and the odd one runs down the coast - even as far as Maroochydore. -
Ken Lambert at 23:32 PM on 16 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
Anne-Marie Blackburn #22 And what do "all the studies on upper-ocean temperatures, the studies which look at ocean heat content to a depth of 2000 metres, the studies which look at changes in abyssal heat content, and the studies that look at sea-level rise and energy imbalance" show?? Suggest you look at 'Robust warming of the upper oceans" thread in this blog. In short summary: latest Willis finds less than 0.1W/sq.m warming equivalent in the deep oceans, von Schukmann chart has bumps which indicate impossible heat transfer rates, Lyman composite is pretty flat after full Argo deployment circa 2003 with a probable offset in the XBT-Argo transition rendering the warming trend line unreliable; and in fact all the data prior to 2003 Argo is probably highly unreliable to the point of being useless. And to cap it all Trenberth's travesty is that the energy balance is far from closed, and SLR is predominantly ice melt (up to 2mm) which absorbs comparatively little heat energy so the energy imbalance worsens. -
hfranzen at 23:16 PM on 16 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Re. #83 Oops. I wrote 1/(1+5.2d) where I should have written 1/(1+5,2f) where f=d/3790. -
Ed Davies at 23:07 PM on 16 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
Or maybe some have done the work but don't like the results so are keeping quiet. -
David Horton at 22:39 PM on 16 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
"why don't you guys roll up your sleeves, get to work and start crunching some data?" - because they have absolutely no interest in the result! -
HumanityRules at 22:36 PM on 16 January 2011Northern hemisphere warming rates: More than you may have heard
#38 Sphaerica "In that period you can easily see the trend for greater warming in the winter and spring" From the image you include the same phenomenon seems to be true for the ETCW period (1930s and 1940s). The stronger anomolies seem to be clustering towards the edge of the image. Yet the ETCW period is meant to be a product of solar forcing while the recent is meant to be GHG. Isn't this observation meant to be a fingerprint of GHGs?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] As you well know, there's a thread for human fingerprints in the seasons. -
Berényi Péter at 22:30 PM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#50 villabolo at 15:11 PM on 16 January, 2011 it's the ocean that warms up the air, not the air cooling off those warm waters The point is the heat sucked out of the ocean by the colder atmosphere above by whatever means (evaporation, radiative transfer, conductance). This excess heat that makes Arctic air let's say -10°C instead of -40°C has nowhere to go but space. As there are always extremely dry patches of air around the Arctic in many locations the so called "Arctic window" (16-30 μm) is also open, making direct radiative transfer of heat from near surface regions to space much more efficient irrespective of the exact width of the narrow CO2 absorption band in between.
-
nealjking at 22:10 PM on 16 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
Maybe "quick & simple" would be even better. -
mars at 21:46 PM on 16 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
I would like to nominate for the B.S award Climate: the counter consensus By Robert M Carter For comments such as: 1 Climate has cooled since 1998 2 No increase in the rate of sea level rise. 3 Increase in level of CO2 maybe due to natural causes such as volcanoes. 4 The chance of producing an accurate weather forecast is the same as flipping a coin. 5 Enough strawmen arguments to feed a herd of elephants. -
funglestrumpet at 21:21 PM on 16 January 2011Monckton Myth #1: Cooling oceans
#25 DH, thank you for your comments, and I have to admit that you are probably correct. However, I cannot think of a better option. I really don’t think that we can continue along the track we are currently on. Perhaps Professor James Lovelock is correct when he says that we are in for a cull, he certainly has a better grasp of the whole situation than most, and certainly me. However, I refuse to give in to the Murdochs and Monctons of this world without a fight. Let me make a prediction. The human cause of global warming will cease to be important as the actual effects of Climate Change become more apparent. The public will demand action to combat it and will turn to the scientists for guidance action. The “scumbag scientists” attitude will be seen as a dangerous one to adopt. They will accept the science and support the action that scientist advise. They will probably refuse to let America off the hook and a world on one side and America on the other can only have one outcome, regardless of America’s military might. I have previously compared on this site a refusal to act because of the belief that Climate Change is not of human origin as akin to refusing to steer round an iceberg because it too is not of human origin. The task for all of us on this side of the fence is to force the debate forwards so that the public at large becomes aware of the danger it and especially it descendants are in. Only then will they see the just how foolish it is to argue the cause as a reason not to act, and anyway, with scientists being relied upon, they will also believe what they said in the past. When you have a tank at the end of your street firing into the houses, destroying the tank is the only object worth going for. It matters not what nationality the crew. To continue as we are is to delay action and that is one thing should not be allowed to happen. If my suggestion of a Nobel Prize directorate is a non-starter then we should try to think of other means to push things along. John Cook and his colleagues do an excellent job, but in truth we need something several orders of magnitude greater if we are not to sleepwalk into a situation where it becomes too late to do anything meaningful. I suspect that that time is not far off. -
jpvs at 21:18 PM on 16 January 2011A Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data
Nice work, Caerbannog! There is a lot of fuzz about climate data, bad ground stations and so on. Your analysis not only shows that a layman (your words, I'm not sure...) with avarage programming skills can get matching results, but also shows that cooking the data does not lead to higher temperatures, on the contrary. The title 'quick and dirty analyses' should be changed, however: 'quick and clean' would be better. -
Rob Painting at 21:12 PM on 16 January 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
GC @ 55 - GISS and GHCN have experienced a great loss of thermometers since 1975. The appropriate thread for your comment is here: Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect? -
perseus at 20:57 PM on 16 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
"gpwayne at 18:09 PM on 14 January, 2011 Anyone fancy inviting Prof. MacKay to respond to the remarks about Without Hot Air?" I put these calculations to MacKay before he published his book in hard copy form, but he seemed unable to respond to them! This is hardly surprising since most of his base figures, particularly the fuel usage, seems to be dragged out of ‘thin air rather than hot air’ if I may borrow a pun. Instead our discusson focussed more aircraft efficiency, which he insisted could not be improved significantly. I have detailed this on the same link. -
perseus at 20:41 PM on 16 January 2011What is the Potential of Wind Power?
"actually thoughtfull at 12:07 PM on 16 January, 2011 I am having trouble with the heat pump diagram in the original post. I think you are suggesting localized CHP (sort of)? A better use of the same CO2 cutting money would be 1) Reduce building losses. R30 minimum walls/floor, R-50 roof 2) R-8 windows or better 3) ground source heat pump 4) solar thermal for cheap winter heat" Well first of all I am not suggesting that we have exhausted other more cost effective options such as building standards and thermal insulation. However, bear in mind that windows have a large carbon footprint, and we still need to generate energy however much energy we conserve. So what is the best method of doing this? No it isn't just a CHP system that would be missing the point completely, see the title 'heat pump'? it could incoporate item 3) on your list. This is an energy strategy which enables the cost of high penetrations of wind to be reduced, by avoiding expensive storage options so the cost of wind needs re-evaluating anyway. However, it still isn't a zero carbon system unless Bio-gas is used as back-up.
Prev 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Next
