Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Next
Comments 99051 to 99100:
-
archiesteel at 17:50 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@GC: Then again, it's good to see you accept Ned's plot, considering it clearly shows a strong warming trend in the polar region. I thought you were a skeptic, but it seems you're finally coming around to reason. -
archiesteel at 17:48 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@GC: "It will take some time for me to extend my analysis to all land stations in the northern hemisphere." ...not to mention getting your results peer-reviewed and published. I mean, we're not just going to take your word for it, you know? -
Tom_the_Bomb at 17:28 PM on 9 January 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
Very impressive, except those hyperlinks are a bit of an eyesore. Is it possible to assign a single- or two-word subpage to each argument? This would make links much easier to remember and follow, and would make it easier to jump in to a discussion with the link. Like this: skepticalscience.com/sun skepticalscience.com/natural skepticalscience.com/consensus skepticalscience.com/cooling skepticalscience.com/models skepticalscience.com/uhi skepticalscience.com/1998 skepticalscience.com/lag skepticalscience.com/good skepticalscience.com/cosmic skepticalscience.com/1934 skepticalscience.com/sealevelrise skepticalscience.com/lia skepticalscience.com/1970s skepticalscience.com/empirical skepticalscience.com/mwp skepticalscience.com/settled skepticalscience.com/acidification etc. Other than that, very helpful, thanks. -
gallopingcamel at 16:55 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Anne-Marie Blackburn, (@155), Please be patient with me. It will take some time for me to extend my analysis to all land stations in the northern hemisphere. When the analysis includes Greenland, Canada and Russia it will no longer be a case of "regional phenomena". You say: "Your exercise is futile." You have been watching too much "Sci-fi" with the Vogons and the Borg. -
gallopingcamel at 16:37 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
KR (@157), Your objection to the coastal Greenland data makes sense but please remember that I am concentrating on stations at high latitudes for a good reason. Temperature changes in high latitudes are several times greater than those measured at the equator. My Greenland analysis is just a start. I am working on arctic Canada and Russia. Ned has already posted results for Canada: http://www.skepticalscience.com/twice-as-much-canada.html I plan to verify Ned's plot although I don't expect to find much fault with his work which correlates well with my Greenland analysis. My next objective is to plot the arctic stations in Russia. Once that is done, the coverage will include the instrumental data for at least five times more stations than are included in NOAA/GHCN, NASA/GISS, UEA/HADCRUT and NCAR. -
gallopingcamel at 16:10 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Alec Cowan (@159), you said: "What is an "us"? a scientist? Are you trying to say that you're a scientist?" I was a scientist for 12 years, living on US government research grants. What I did was not "rocket science" (it was way more complicated than that). If you really want to know more, my post on Greenland was done using my real name. The "gallopingcamel" moniker stems from my days playing wing three quarter at Cambridge University owing to my ungainly running style. George Bernard Shaw once said "“Those who can’t do, teach.” I have passed beyond the ability to do very much so I teach. Please feel free to sign up for one of my courses; I guarantee that you will learn something useful. I love abrasive students as they keep the others awake. Here is my course schedule: http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html -
Bob Lacatena at 15:23 PM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50, You have steadfastly refused to look at the content of the original post, or the understand the mechanisms behind past and present warming and cooling beyond the most simplistic approach to the subject. This is why you continually fail to understand what is being discussed. Without repeating all of the details that I've now listed multiple times, and simply summarizing: 1) In the past, orbital changes have initiated a swing towards a glacial or interglacial period. Changes in albedo resulting from these orbital changes are the actual initial forcing. Further changes in albedo, as well as in CO2 and H2O, constitute strong, very slowly developing positive feedbacks which are absolutely necessary for turning the initial, weak, and insufficient forcing (from albedo changes, which in turn come from orbital changes) into the temperatures swings necessary to move either into or out of a glacial period. 2) The current, artificial injection of CO2 into the atmosphere is in no way comparable to the move into or out of a glacial period, and any attempt at a comparison is fallacious. One simply cannot draw conclusions from past events without taking the time to understand the several mechanisms involved, to recognize and consider the differences, and to think things through beyond the most childishly basic level of "gee, this never happened before, so it can't happen now." -
adelady at 14:11 PM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
You amaze me yet again. Thank you very much. -
MrAce at 10:18 AM on 9 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Hi Hugo, thanks for your response, maybe I should explain better where I got my numbers ;-) The 1.25 is the middle of 1.2 and 1.3 and is the estimate of the no-feedback climate sensitivity I got from the paper of Hansen in 1995: "For example, for doubled CO2 the no-feedback climate sensitivity of 1.2-1.3 °C is increased to about 2-5 °C in the GCM simulations" I don't think it changed much since then. According to the Keeling curve approximation, the concentration CO2 in 2110 will be 688, currently we have 390, this is a (688/390)-1 = 76% increase. (must have used different number above, since I wrote 78%) Because you arrived at 1.4 C for not even a doubling of CO2 I wondered why you got different results from what Hansen stated. Are you calculating the same thing? I calculated based on the 1.25 of Hansen what such an CO2 increase would do: 1.25*ln(1.76)/ln(2) = 1 degree C. (1.76 is for the 76% increase, 2 is for the doubling, and the ln's are because of the logarithmic relationship) If I calculate the climate sensitivity based on your numbers I get 1.4*ln(2)/ln(1.76) = 1.7 C and this is about 35% higher than the number Hansen stated. I agree that both 1.25 and 1.4 are serious, but the feedbacks are the ones to wreak havoc, and turning it into 2 - 4.5 C -
Rob Painting at 08:57 AM on 9 January 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Zoltan @ 3 -"He does seem to be a very experienced expert on sea levels." And water divining too. Which doesn't really say much for his credibility either. In fact he wrote some garbled paper trying to scientifically provide evidence for water divining, thereby effectively ending all credibility. But why rely on the word of one rather confused man, when we have satellite altimetry data and tidal gauges?:
Moderator Response:[DB] Updated graphic from this url:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel3/sl_ns_global.png
-
Mila at 08:19 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
#15 nothing helps more than picking holes :) #16 I am afraid that automatic expand of everything would make the display too cluttered and I personally prefer more grannual expand for archives; but I was inspired by your comment and now automatically expand the last month of posts, which I find useful (page reload will be probably necessary to see it just now) -
ahaynes at 07:58 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Thank you Mila. Is there a way to make expanding the archives more generous? (e.g., if I expand "2010", I'd like to be able to see all the _posts_ from 2010, rather than all the _months_ of 2010) -
OPatrick at 07:43 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Thanks Mila (and The Yooper). I realise I've just spent an afternoon picking holes in your work, so worth saying again - it's brilliant! I found the Curry comments using your site anyway, via the contents section, which I really like (but should Tamino get his own keyword?) -
David Backes at 07:35 AM on 9 January 2011Newcomers, Start Here
I was so happy to discover this excellent website. I will be using it in class, and have just plugged it in this post on my blog: Climate Change--Ideology, Truth, and a Healthy Spirituality -
Alec Cowan at 07:02 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel I must confess some confusion owing to the proliferation of moderators Nobody playing by the rules and acting in good faith should be confused by a "proliferation of moderators". You simply are saying that you have an strategy here and it must take into account what moderators allow. @gallopingcamel Some scientists have indeed concluded that CO2 is driving modern climate change but there are plenty of us who disagree. What is an "us"? a scientist? Are you trying to say that you're a scientist? Are you playing with words and your "plenty of us who disagree" means "pseudo-skeptics" but you're doing it in the hope somebody will think there's a majority of scientist thinking so? @gallopingcamel Do you understand the variables in the Y-axis of the figure you are linking? Could you explain what is it? -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel - Thank you for returning to a discussion of the data. Looking at your coastal stations plot (which is interesting), it is still just a tiny selection of regional data - global warming is just that, 'global'. I would have to say that regional data can only be used to discuss regional issues, which include the influence of changing weather patterns, jet streams, currents, PDO, etc. You received a moderator comment to that effect when you first posted the coastal station data. I have to say that I cannot tell what point(s) you are trying to advance, though. You first indicated that you disagreed with Blackburn and Severinghaus (in a fashion that should have gotten that post deleted). You then posted that you saw how CO2 acted as a feedback on glacial time scales, but stated that "the effect of CO2 is subtle, not dominant", overlooking the point of the thread, which is that CO2's role as a feedback in glacial climate changes does not invalidate it's role as a forcing in modern times. In fact, it provides more evidence demonstrating how CO2 has a forcing effect presently. Next, selecting a very small data subset of coastal Greenland stations, you argue here that you don't see a correlation between CO2 and temperature. As a side trip, when posting heats up, you throw up a link to someone's PowerPoint (unsourced, unreviewed, and basically an assemblage of well known skeptic fallacies). Again, cherry-picking tiny data subsets won't give you enough information to argue either against or for CO2 effects. And if you wish to argue that CO2 is weak, or that CO2 doesn't correlate with temperature, please take that discussion to one of those threads. -
Albatross at 06:17 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
RSS TLT trends from 1979 til present:
Says it all really....
Now moving on, please!?
-
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 06:12 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel And people have already explained to you that regional variations can usually be explained by regional phenomena, such as changes in ocean or atmospheric currents - it in no way invalidates the claim that higher levels of CO2 will in all likelihood lead to increased global temperatures, which is what we are observing. Your exercise is futile. -
gallopingcamel at 06:00 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
I must confess some confusion owing to the proliferation of moderators, it reminds me of the wrestler who was doing well until the referee clobbered him with a folding chair. I got used to Daniel Bailey but now there is "muoncounter". Whatever happened to John Cook? KR asks for evidence which I have been providing liberally on this thread. Let me try again with Daniel Bailey's comment (#117). My original response (#133) got deleted. DB's first point: "In order to drive acceptance, your Greenland CO2/temperature research will also have to explain the mass loss we can measure, as shown here:" My explanation is that the mass loss could be related to the >2 Kelvin temperature increase since 1850, clearly shown in my data. See: http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/coastal-average.png DB's 2nd point rests on the superficial correlation between HADCRUT3 and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere once the latter variable has been exaggerated by scaling tricks. Correlation in itself proves nothing and in this case the correlation is only good over a short timespan (~1975 to 2000). The data I presented for Greenland and Ned's data for arctic Canada shows a strong cooling trend starting around 1934 and ending more than 50 years later. Measurements taken at high latitudes should magnify temperature trends so one should take them seriously. During those decades when temperatures are falling at high northern latitudes, CO2 concentrations are rising monotonically. I call that an "anti-correlation".Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your original comment contained an accusation of dishonesty, which is a violation of the Comments Policy. Keep your comments on the science, ideally supported by peer-reviewed sources and avoid personal attacks and all will be well. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:22 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Variation in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice AgesModerator Response: [muoncounter] There is an ample discussion of whether or not we are heading for an ice age here. Most of the 'pacemaker' conversation has already occurred there. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:15 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] It is those anthropogenic effects which are key. Evidence exists that future ice ages may be delayed by up to half a million years by our burning of fossil fuels. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 05:07 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel And herein lies our problem I think - for you, an unsubstantiated claim seems to have equal weighing to that of a scientific theory which is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence. This is not how it works in science. Those who don't accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change have systematically failed to show that the theory is deeply flawed or that some other mechanism can account for all the observations we have. You don't really have a case, in other words. When it comes to science, people are entitled to their opinion but not to their facts. -
Albatross at 05:04 AM on 9 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
Caebrannog @68, Don't sell yourself short! I also found your interpretation of the numbers very interesting. Readers can find his/her summary here at Tamino's place. -
caerbannog at 04:55 AM on 9 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
A couple of weeks ago (when some uncharacteristically rainy weather kept me indoors here in San Diego), I decided to "roll up my sleeves" and write up my own simple global temperature-anomaly program. Nothing fancy -- all it does is compute NASA-style annual temperature anomalies for all of the GHCN stations and then perform simple "dumb averages" to come up with crude global annual temperature anomaly estimates. No fancy gridding/geospatial weighting or anything like that -- just simple plain-vanilla dumb averages of the anomalies. I crunched both the GHCN *raw* and *adjusted* monthly-mean temperature data sets. Since most of the GHCN temperature stations are located in the temperate regions of the NH, I snagged NASA's "Northern Latitudes" temperature anomaly data from the GISSTEMP repository to see how my own results compared with some official NASA results. Below is a plot of the results (5-year moving averages): My "dumb average" GHCN raw data results are plotted in green. My "dumb average" GHCN "adjusted" data results are plotted in red. And NASA's official "Northern Latitudes" temperature anomalies are plotted in blue.
The results pretty much speak for themselves.
This was not a difficult task at all. I'm an EE with so-so programming skills (my technical abilities would best be measured in either MicroSanters or MegaWatts), and this was a slam-dunk easy programming exercise. This is exactly the sort of project (broken up into digestible chunks) that would be good to assign bright college-bound high-school students (calibrated to USA academic standards here).
Now the question is -- why didn't any of the loud-mouthed Wattsian deniers who have been accusing NASA/CRU/etc. of "cooking the books" with temperature "adjustments" perform some simple sanity checks like this on the data *years* ago?
I mean, if you are going to proclaim loudly and publicly that NASA's global-warming results are artifacts of "temperature adjustments", wouldn't you want to verify that by crunching the raw vs. adjusted data yourself before shooting off your mouth? (rhetorical question here).
-
Mila at 04:51 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
#13 Keywords are based only on the texts themselves. I will put a note to the right column -
Phila at 04:44 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Albatross, IMHO, it is now time to ignore the obvious trolling which is going on here and wasting everyone's time. The person in question is free to engage in such musings on his own blog. Couldn't agree more. This has been an exercise in futility, and the main thing motivating GC seems to be ideological hostility (cf. #146). That may explain why he bothered linking to Rutan's largely non-substantive paper; maybe it's not the science that's the attraction, but the invective. Perhaps that's why GC went out of his way to call our attention to the "offense" the paper might cause, rather than to its actual arguments. "Trolling" seems like exactly the right word for this pattern of insulting, evasive behavior.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] What was said, was said. Let us move on to discuss the science of the post and be more vigilant to the behaviors already displayed and discussed. -
OPatrick at 04:00 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Mila - back again. Refreshing the page seems to work for me at least some of the time, so it might be worth adding a note to this effect on the front page as a temporary measure at least. Am I right in saying that the keyword links are only from the posts themselves and not from comments? I was just looking for the Judith Curry comments, but of course she only comes up in the comments, not in the original posts.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Joe Romm covers them in detail over at Climate Progress here. -
Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel - This site is called "Skeptical Science" for a reason. Statements such as "Some scientists have indeed concluded that CO2 is driving modern climate change but there are plenty of us who disagree" are empty and vacuous arguments unless you present some evidence. Without data, measurements, and in this case papers capable of convincing others in the field (which is a reasonable definition of how to present good science), it's just rhetoric. -
Albatross at 02:34 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Moderator, I call foul with this nonsensical unsubstantiated statement by GC @147 (I could easily elaborate, but won't for reasons given below): "Some scientists have indeed concluded that CO2 is driving modern climate change but there are plenty of us who disagree." This is a classic bait statement designed to fabricate debate (as was @146), and as such adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion or the science. IMHO, it is now time to ignore the obvious trolling which is going on here and wasting everyone's time. The person in question is free to engage in such musings on his own blog. -
muoncounter at 02:16 AM on 9 January 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
#3: "evaluating his comments ... " An interview that starts off with "there's no one who's beaten me" didn't do much for his credibility. When I got to "if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down", I lost interest. Assuming the earth to be a uniform sphere (its not) one meter of additional radius would increase the earth's rotational inertia by a factor of 1.00000031, slowing the rotation rate in proportion. But the mass of water that moves outwards is much much less than the mass of rock that stays put, so the effect would be far less. His use of the familiar ice skater analogy is hardly appropriate in this context: rather than extending her arms changing her rotation rate, this is more like a drop of water on the tip of her nose. Then there's Wikipedia: Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing. He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...". As I said, I lost interest. -
gallopingcamel at 02:01 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Having just received a "yellow card" from the moderator, I will ignore some comments (e.g. muoncounter and Alec Cowan) to avoid getting a "red card". However in the spirit of trying to find some common ground I agree with the following statement by Ms. Blackburn: "The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials." However, her next statement is less satisfactory: "To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change." Some scientists have indeed concluded that CO2 is driving modern climate change but there are plenty of us who disagree.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] You are free to ignore whatever you want, except the Comments Policy. If you raise an issue that is off-topic, you'll get a yellow card. If you keep at it, you have no one to blame but yourself when you get 'sent off'. -
gallopingcamel at 01:38 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
KR (@140), Many of the people who you refer to as "skeptics" are reacting to the nonsense that is being put out by our government and researchers funded by the government. A classic example would be the EPA's attempt to label CO2 as a "Pollutant". -
gallopingcamel at 01:29 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Ned (@114), Thanks for your explanation but here is my commemt from #136: "Will it make a difference to include more stations? Ned says "NO" but I need to check that claim for myself." I seldom disagree with what you on say on this blog but a great president once said "Trust but verify". Your data shows a prolonged decline in temperatures in arctic Canada starting around 1934. My Greenland plots show the same thing. I plan to make a similar plot for arctic Russia. I would be happy to send my analysis to you for review prior to posting it on the web. -
Ned at 01:11 AM on 9 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
GC writes: The problem with Ned's plot is that it uses GHCN data which includes a declining number of stations after 1975. There are several years with only two stations (Alert and Resolute). Actually, what that plot shows is that it makes no difference to the calculated trend for Arctic land temperatures if you use only GHCN stations, or if you also add in additional stations from Environment Canada. The red line in that plot is NH Arctic land temps, with the additional stations from Environment Canada. It's more or less indistinguishable from the black line (GHCN only). The decline in station numbers is pretty much irrelevant. It has no effect on the global or zonal mean trend. -
Zoltan at 00:58 AM on 9 January 2011Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Has there been a response to the issues raised by Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner? He does seem to be a very experienced expert on sea levels. Am interested in evaluating his comments on sea level inferred from earth's rotation rate and other approaches. He seems quite convinced that the claims of AGW vis a vis sea levels are spurious. Feedback welcome. The interview is at http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf. -
Mila at 00:56 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Internet Explorer is always causing problems to web developers; broken standards, some features not implemented, and painful to debug because of mediocre error messages - I will investigate and try to find out where the problems are -
OPatrick at 00:31 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Oh look - now I can use the 'Keywords' tab in that window, but not in another window I've just opened to chack. -
OPatrick at 00:29 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
I just had the same problem with the 'Names' tab, but that solved itself when I refreshed the page. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:28 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Mila, I've had a quick check and while the 'keywords' page opens with Chrome over Windows 7, I too cannot get it to work with Explorer 8 (version 8.0.7600.16385) and Windows 7. The link to 'keywords' from the menu bar at the top doesn't work, nor does the link to 'keywords' in the body of the page under 'Guide main features'. I also get an 'error on page' at the bottom of the IE window. Seeing I use Chrome mostly it's not a problem for me. However more people would use IE than use Chrome. BTW - this work of yours is brilliant and will be using it constantly. Many thanks. -
OPatrick at 00:01 AM on 9 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Ah, you're getting technical now Mila. I'm using Internet Explorer on Windows Vista. It is only the 'Keywords' tab that does nothing for me, the others ('contents', 'names' etc.) are working fine. I do get a little message in bottom left of the browser pane saying 'Error on page', but nothing else to indicate a problem. -
Mila at 23:21 PM on 8 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
#6 Can you be more specific please? I need to know your browser (with version if possible) and operating system. -
OPatrick at 22:31 PM on 8 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Mila, the 'Keywords' option doesn't seem to be working for me. -
OPatrick at 22:01 PM on 8 January 2011Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
Brilliant! Thank you, you've made a real difference. -
Richo at 21:06 PM on 8 January 2011We're heading into cooling
I can see how people like cruzn246 can't understand global warming/climate change, especially if you live in a place that seems contrary. I just googled the weather at Lunch and Sunset, Smithton Illinois, -4.8 C, that is cold. Talk about shrinkage.. -
scaddenp at 20:26 PM on 8 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
GC, you have been around here long enough to surely figure for yourself that the "paper" you point to is full of errors and misrepresentations. And yet you somehow believe despite this that it has some substance? What exactly do think is a good process for evaluating something like this when you come across it? And please dont say that a good evaluation technique is based on whether it supports what you would like to be true. -
Ron Crouch at 17:28 PM on 8 January 2011What's in a Name?
The main fault I find with Lovelock's conclusion Daniel is that the 600,000 people that survive will have to live in the polar regions where the food chain is full of toxins. And that's why his conclusion is optimistic (from a survivability viewpoint). Sorry about this now getting off topic. -
archiesteel at 16:11 PM on 8 January 2011We're heading into cooling
@cruzn246: "Well, we are going through our coldest winter in a heck of a long time in the Midwest. Why not pop up?" Winter has been exceptionally mild so far here in Montreal. It's a global thing - but you already know that, don't you? -
archiesteel at 16:09 PM on 8 January 2011We're heading into cooling
@cruzn246: " There are more than a few scientists who see this multi decadel cycle as real." "More than a few" means nothing. The reality is that proportionately very few climate scientists believe in this. In spite your unverifiable claims to be studying climatology, you have made several plainly false statements so far, such as the one where you claimed we were in a cooling phase. Daniel kindly showed you you were wrong. One of the first duties of the wise being admitting when they are wrong, will you recognize that you made an incorrect claim regarding the current temperature trend? -
dhogaza at 15:33 PM on 8 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
But for that to mean anything one has to ignore that just about every substance known to man at one time or another has been statistically linked to cancer
Also ... at the risk of being blunt ... this statement's simply false. -
dhogaza at 15:32 PM on 8 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Billhunter:Lindzen is perfectly aware that during a warming period you will have more warm records than cold records. That is not the question that needs to be answered.
Lindzen testified to Congress that it's not really warming, and that supposed warming is due to modern thermometers that magically records transient warmth more efficiently than older mercury-based thermometers, while at the same time not being more sensitive to transient colder events. So the question *you* need to answer is ... why did Lindzen testify to Congress that it's not really warming?People like to compare AGW statistics and people termed as deniers of it like smoking/cancer statistics and those who denied that. But for that to mean anything one has to ignore that just about every substance known to man at one time or another has been statistically linked to cancer and the smoking/cancer link just happens to be one eventually proven valid.
You really believe that the smoking/cancer link has been proven valid??? Lindzen doesn't. He's been very clear that he thinks that smoking is mostly harmless. Rather than waste our time here, why don't you go argue with him about the fact that smoking is a very significant cause of cancer and heart disease? Methinks you probably don't understand what a crank Lindzen is when it comes to mainstream science.
Prev 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Next
