Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Next
Comments 99701 to 99750:
-
TimTheToolMan at 17:05 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
"Martinson said that heat stored in deep waters far from Antarctica is being pushed southward and becoming entrained in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current" Now read it carefully. Is he saying that the heat stored in the deep waters is AGW in nature? Or are you reading that into it? This is what I would consider a very likely scenario and find his reasoning good. However the deep waters migrating is not obviously an anthropogenic effect is it. And the timeframes to heat the deep waters are all wrong too. -
TimTheToolMan at 17:00 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Um, try again. It actually is titled: "Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice". My bad on mistakenly typing Arctic. You can clearly see in the Thermohaline Circulation diagram in the Wiki where the warmer waters come from and goe to. And the timeframes believed to be involved. -
Albatross at 16:53 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
TTT@69, "Utter rubbish." Now this is what one of the lead authors had to say (here) "Martinson said that heat stored in deep waters far from Antarctica is being pushed southward and becoming entrained in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, a vast, wind-driven water mass that constantly circles the frozen continent. The evidence comes from 18 years of Antarctic voyages Martinson has made to measure water temperature, salinity and other qualities at different depths. He called the increases in ocean heat in the past few decades “jaw dropping.” Now feel free to go argue with Dr. Martinson et al. -
Albatross at 16:42 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
TTT, As opposed to thermometers placed ner acres of tarmac at airports which are then branded "low population" centres? I corrected you. Now please stay on topic and stop arguing straw men. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:38 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
"And "Attention is drawn to possible warm biases in early thermometer shelters" Other papers have found warm bias b/c of poorly ventilated shelters used a long time ago." As opposed to thermometers placed ner acres of tarmac at airports which are then branded "low population" centres? -
TimTheToolMan at 16:35 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
""....except the majority of the AGW heating is known to have occurred much later." There, fixed." Utter rubbish. Have you seen a paper that has described the warm upper ocean migrating towards the poles as the reason? It should be relatively easy to spot. No, its the deep ocean they're talking about, hence the title of the article "Deep Ocean Heat is rapidly melting Arctic ice" and its thermohaline circulation that drives that. It takes many hundreds of years for THC waters to migrate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulationModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Um, try again. It actually is titled: "Deep ocean heat is rapidly melting Antarctic ice". -
Albatross at 16:31 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
TTT @66, Read the abstract that I linked to carefully. "We suggest that uncertainties in the choice of instrumental targets at the hemispheric scale, and instrumental data inhomogeneities at the Alpine and possibly also the hemispheric-scale are the most important factors in explaining this offset." And "Attention is drawn to possible warm biases in early thermometer shelters" Other papers have found warm bias b/c of poorly ventilated shelters used a long time ago. Yes, there are many step changes in the data-- and the response time of thermometers is something they take into consideration. See this post and embedded link. As for Lindzen--your latest comments are just obfuscation. I'll post the exchange between Lindzen and Baird for you and others here to read-- will take some time to transcribe it though. -
Albatross at 16:11 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
TTT@65, "....except the majority of the AGW heating isbelievedknown to have occurred much later." There, fixed. The thermal inertia of the oceans has been calculated to be about 30-40 years and discussed much in the literature. You seem to have chosen to misread the article. They are not saying that the heat surfacing near Antarctica was added to the deep ocean en mass over a century ago. They are saying that it has been steadily (albeit slowly) accumulating in the deep oceans for more than a century and some of that heat is now surfacing near Antarctica. An important difference. There is more clearly much more heat in the pipeline, and that is a concern, not a refutation of the theory of AGW. Now until contrarians stop engaging in B.S., and entertaining conspiracy theories, and distorting the science they will continue to have no credibility. I will take it by your silence on the B.S. awards that you implicitly agree/support with the B.S that the award winners are guilty of. Now had you come here and first distanced yourself from the BS award winners' antics and then tried to take issue with my critique of Lindzen then you might have had some credibility. Too late for you to back peddle now. -
TimTheToolMan at 16:09 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
@Albatross "Lindzen made the claim-- he provided no evidence to support his claim to the energy sub committee that newer instruments are more sensitive to highs than lows" Actually the chairman made the claim. Lindzen was asked to agree or not. My hypothesis isn't trying to do anything more than support Lindzen's belief. Its certainly not trying to say anything about the more recent measurements. "Finally, if the Lindzen's claim were true there would be a clear step change or discontinuity in the thermometer data " The data is FULL of step changes with changes in both location and type of thermometer. Perhaps this has never been investigated. "until either you or he provides credible, quantitative support it remains just that, a hypothesis." Correct. But that sure beats a bunch of people laughing at Lindzen because they haven't thought through the issue. "I did find this with a quick search, but it speaks to a warm bias in earlier temperatures." I dont think a proxy for temperatures (especially tree rings which are known to be dubious) is an especially strong argument. -
Albatross at 15:48 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
TTT, Lindzen made the claim-- he provided no evidence to support his claim to the energy sub committee that newer instruments are more sensitive to highs than lows, now that is B.S. The onus is on him to support his claim in a scientific matter. You grasping at straws on his behalf and arguing hypotheticals doesn't improve matters. Your hypothesis doesn't explain the systematic trend towards higher night- time temperatures in recent decades. Finally, if the Lindzen's claim were true there would be a clear step change or discontinuity in the thermometer data which would be detected when climatologists homogenized the data. I am unaware Lindzen's issue being raised in the papers on data homogenization that I have read. Anyhow, maybe between the the of us we can dredge through the literature to either support or refute Lindzen's hypothesis. But until either you or he provides credible, quantitative support it remains just that, a hypothesis. I did find this with a quick search, but it speaks to a warm bias in earlier temperatures. -
TimTheToolMan at 15:47 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
@archiesteel The argument hasn't come down to that at all. When the AGWers continue to ignore alternative explanations without proper consideration then they will continue to blindy assume what they're told. @Daniel I've always thought it was warmer waters doing the melting and not increased LW radiation as per increased CO2 + feedbacks. From the article "Global warming is sneaky. For more than a century it has been hiding large amounts of excess heat in the world's deep seas. Now that heat is coming to the surface again in one of the worst possible places: Antarctica." So now the thing to determine is whether the warmer water is as a result of AGW or not. It has long been believed that deep ocean heat takes a VERY long time to accumulate and the article itself suggests the heat has been accumulating for more than a century...except the majority of the AGW heating is believed to have occurred much later. If it cant be shown that CO2 first caused the deep oceans to heat that much and then migrate to the poles in the timeframes allowed then AGW is going to have another problem. -
archiesteel at 15:38 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
@TTTM: In other words, temperatures have up to now been underestimated? :-) Seriously, when your argument against AGW comes down to "thermometers are more precise now", you've already lost the debate. There's a reason why contrarians are getting increasingly more shrill and desperate... -
TimTheToolMan at 14:27 PM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
"And no, to my knowledge there is no reason why thermometers would be more sensitive (or respond quicker) to highs than lows." @Albatros, 10 Maybe Lindzen is right about his statement and maybe he isn't. To have any chance of being right there needs to be a theory of why it might be so. Can you imagine why highs might be more prevalent given more sensitive thermometers? I can. High temperatures generally occur during the day when for example it might be cloudy for most of the day but briefly have the clouds break and temperatures rise for a short time. The new sensitive, high sampling rate thermomenters will spot that shorter peak whereas the older mercury based themometers wont respond quickly enough to see it. Compare this to low temperatures which generally occur overnight and often early in the morning (say 5am) following long slow cooling overnight. The old mercury thermometers will generally have been able to follow those temperatures down all night and perhaps give a more realistic low reading. So in fact there could well be good reasons why Lindzen's proposal is correct. To dismiss the idea out of hand simply shows it hasn't been considered or investigated properly. -
citizenschallenge at 13:50 PM on 3 January 2011A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
#2 dorlomin "The real damage of climategate was the press seeking to sell a controvesy rather than explain science. Amist one of the three strongest la Ninas for the past 60 years and very low solar activity we are still smaking straight into the 30 year average on the UAH dataset http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ (as a measure of mid troposphere temps UAH and RSS tend to show a bigger swing through ENSO cycles)" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good observation, but I don't share your optimism, given the politicians who are moving into the US House of Representative, and State Capitals with their agenda. They, and the multimillion dollar lobbyists feeding them, are going to attack climate science with new plateaus of ruthlessness and public relations campaigns! So hang on, if you want to defend honest science it will be a rough ride, especially in Washington DC! -
Daniel Bailey at 12:32 PM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Re: muoncounter (138) And the best part is: it's a cherry-red dot... I so loved cherry-pickin' time growin' up... The Yooper -
MattJ at 12:14 PM on 3 January 2011A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
Not only the cartoon, but that title, "Nature did not Read the Hacked Emails" was right on the money. But I am surprised so few others have made the connection: the disastrous deluge of disinformation called 'climategate' is a perfect illustration of why Assange and all his puerile supporters are SO wrong when they glibly proclaim "sunshine is good". It is because people will read things out of context that some communications should be kept private. There is NOTHING shady about doing so. -
muoncounter at 12:01 PM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
#137: Yooper, I am shocked and disappointed. Showing a graph in which one point is by itself, not connected to all the others? As if to draw the viewer's attention to that point? Clearly a cherrypick. And since its obviously above the 'trend', it must be an ella NinoNinaPDOAOAMOSDI anomaly. Due to blocking. Or cosmics. Or UV. Or ocean heating or lack of ocean heating. Or excess WV and low clouds. Or lack of WV and high clouds. Or all those football fans tailgating, cooking up BBQ wings in stadium parking lots. Why just cherrypick one reason, must be all of 'em put together!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] SDI? Strategic Defense Initiative? Or something more sinister? -
Daniel Bailey at 11:38 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Nope, still hasn't stopped:
Courtesy of Tamino
And the monotony goes on...
The Yooper
-
Albatross at 11:34 AM on 3 January 2011Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
"But he designed the experiment, he chose the 95% confidence level" Actually, no he did not Lindzen and Lubos Motl did. See here. 15PacksADay probably also believes the myth that HadCRUT massaged their data to hide the decline in global temperatures. -
Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
15PacksADay - So choosing to ask about a 15 year period (when just about everyone in climate science agrees that 25-30 is the minimum to evaluate a significant trend), the largest period in that time frame that did not meet the 95% significance threshold - is that good journalism? Or is that a trick question intended to advance a statistically false viewpoint? I do wish Jones had answered that question a bit differently - but he answered it correctly given the data. Positive, but not at the 95% significance level. -
Bibliovermis at 10:51 AM on 3 January 2011Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
That was a case of answering a leading/staged question presented by the interviewer rather than designing an experiment. -
15PacksADay at 10:34 AM on 3 January 2011Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
It's been a while since I did any actual science, but my understanding is that the scientist picks the confidence level AHEAD of time, and if the result is significant, it's significant, and if it's not, the scientist does not actually get to say " Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." The scientist does not get to post-facto change the significance level to suit the experiment. If Jones dislikes picking confidence levels, let him use Bayesian analysis. But he designed the experiment, he chose the 95% confidence level, and the data doesn't match that. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:23 AM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Re: actually thoughtfull (59) Or this one over at Climate Progress on December 15th? The Yooper -
Albatross at 09:17 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Eric @135, thanks. OK, good to hear that you agree. -
Eric (skeptic) at 09:13 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Albatross, this question? "Has anthropogenic global warming stopped (and by that I do not mean slowed down). If so, when exactly?" Has not stopped. -
muoncounter at 08:48 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
#121: "roughly what I meant: "colder and snowier winters ... " Thank you for roughly agreeing; the linked article states that the cause of the those deeper winter conditions is the Arctic melt. Of course, if you play that tape forward a decade or two, all that open water in the Arctic summer will absorb plenty of heat --- that'll be nice vacationing. -
Chris G at 08:24 AM on 3 January 2011Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
I only have one objection to the article; there is no reason to believe that we are on a track to only double the CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate change is not one of those problems that hit us and go away. As long as we continue to use fossil fuels, the level of CO2 will continue to rise (especially taking feedbacks into account), along with the energy content of the planet. We can divert resources to producing alternate energy systems while there are only 6 billion of us and we have enough energy to feed everyone (sort of), or we can wait until there are more people and a greater demand for energy, and dealing with an already devastated environment. On a personal note, I just got back from visiting the New Zealand branch of my family (Kapiti Coast area). John, that is a beautiful country you have. It struck me that if the typical American had the same attitude toward conservation that the average person there has, there would be a lot less trouble it the world. (And my own country would be a lot cleaner.) -
adelady at 07:54 AM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Did you see this one in September? http://www.skepticalscience.com/billions-of-blow-dryers.html -
Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Eric (skeptic) - The data is available; twice daily outgoing radiation from pretty much every spot on earth. Longwave radiation values are also available from other resources, such as IRI here. As to distribution versus averages - When Trenberth 2009 updated his outgoing IR from 390 (1999 values?) to 396, it was due to the local variances and the T^4 relationship increasing the estimated IR. But if you are measuring OLR from a satellite, that's a measurement, not an estimate. We're measuring the totals. Given the current state of the art and consensus of climate science, I think the Burden of Proof is on the skeptic side here. If you feel that low scale variances in water vapor distribution are increasing OLR radiation to point of providing a significant negative feedback - well, take the data and show it. But (getting back to post #73, which I had originally responded to) - unsupported and erroneous assertions of lower Arctic humidity are a lousy scientific argument. -
Albatross at 07:50 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Eric @129, For the record, would you mind please answering my question @122 here. Thanks. -
Albatross at 07:48 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Eric,@129, indeed we did :) -
Alexandre at 07:46 AM on 3 January 2011A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
Great cartoon. -
actually thoughtful at 07:40 AM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Is there any credible news regarding ocean heat energy? Or are we still at Trenberth's tragedy? I don't spend too much time doubting significance of global warming, but when I do - it is because a trip up on where the heat is. -
archiesteel at 07:28 AM on 3 January 2011The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
Again, BP likes to cherry-pick (in this case, depth of measurements) and claims trends over a 2-3 years periods, ignoring the laws of statistics. There used to be a time when his input was challenging, but now it feels as if he's not even trying anymore, and just throws around whatever he can, hoping something will stick. -
archiesteel at 07:12 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@BP: "And yes, in those parts of the globe where monthly average temperatures were high above normal, that is, Northern Canada, South Eastern Greenland & Eastern Siberia, including Kamchatka (almost) no one lives. It explains the general perception of the last month of last year being one of the coldest on record." So many errors in just one paragraph, it makes me think BP has sunk to RSVP's level. Sad. First, your list of places where monthly average temperatures were above normal is longer than what you've indicated. For starters, even in southern Canada (which is far from empty) temperatures are above normal. Almost 15C higher than normal here in Quebec City. Other places you could have mentioned: the western US, southern Europe, Africa, the Caucasus, the Philippines, South America...all places where no one lives, right? The fact there was a "general perception of cold" is irrelevant. What matters is the scientific reality...perhaps you should start trying to figure that out before continuing to write such nonsense. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:12 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Albatross, we must have crossed posts. I will find a more appropriate thread for the other discussion. -
michael sweet at 06:59 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Argus, Albatross beat me to the reference to your wild claim @19 "An all time record cold spell in Europe, however, is worth nothing". You have not provided a single location where this winter has set any record at all, much less an all time record cold December . I have produced data on anomalies of +20C. The data at 51 show normal winter temperatures: it is December. You should admit you have no data that shows record cold, since you have not produced anything except unusually hot weather data. See these pictures of people ice skating on the Thames river for a cold year, it is much too warm to do that this year. "Skeptics" like to compare the weather to the past decade- the warmest ever recorded- and claim it is cold because it was not the warmest ever. Produce some data that supports your position or stop wasting my time with your absurd claims. -
archiesteel at 06:56 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
@Argus: my bad, you didn't start with the cherry-picking. You did, however, make a strawman argument that "warmists cherry-pick all the time," which is complete bull. Contrary to deniers, who cherry-pick temperature records and use these as evidence AGW is false, people who understand the science will not use record highs as evidence supporting AGW. Rather, they will (correctly) point out that such temperature records are *consistent* with AGW theory. There is an important difference, here, although I'm afraid it will be lost on those who long ago decided they didn't believe in global warming... The fact you believe dhogaza was cherry-picking in the two comments you referred to clearly shows you have no idea what you're talking about - just like back on digg. Why not actually try to learn some genuine science instead? -
MrAce at 06:55 AM on 3 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Are these the calculations for the no-feedback climate sensitivity? I'm wondering because I thought the no-feedback climate sensitivity was around 1.2-1.3. If I use your approximation of the Keeling curve I get a 688 ppm in 2110 and this is a 78% increase over 2010 and I would expect an increase in temperature of 1.25*ln(1.78)/ln(2) = 1.04 in 2110. How come you get 1.4? -
Albatross at 06:52 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Eric, in a seemingly hopeless effort to keep this thread on track. Could you please also answer the question @122 which I directed at Argus and BP. Thanks. If people wish to discuss OHC and Arctic amplification or negative feedbacks then people can go to the appropriate threads-- as will I.Moderator Response: Thank you for trying to wrangle this thread back on topic. Deletions might begin soon on this thread. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:51 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
#122 Albatross, my view comes from BP's repetitive claim that OHC has stopped increasing with the main objection that it is too short a time period. OTOH, there is often a claim made that with a quiet sun we should be seeing cooling and we are not (likewise too short a time period). I put those together and conclude that the ocean is releasing stored heat to create part of the temperature increase. Or even more to your question, AGW from GHG continues as usual to create the observed temperature increase while the release of stored heat is offsetting the "quiet sun". Of course that is not quantitative because it is very hard to quantify the solar magnetic effects and the effects of the full solar spectrum on weather patterns. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:40 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
KR, if outgoing LW and SW (albedo) is captured on the time scale shown in the link in #112, then averaged over the month and the earth, the balance could tell us how much energy the earth gained month to month. We would be able to answer dhogaza's question "did weather save us" for that month. I don't know of any study that has done this over a decade or two and compared the results to OHC changes. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has and I would like to read it. My point in #107 was that the distribution of water vapor determined the radiative balance, not the average. If the average goes up, it will be more likely to capture outgoing LW, but only to the extent that it is evenly distributed. If it is uneven, such as what we see in blocking patterns (stationary lows and instead of a stronger but fixed latitude jet stream) then outgoing LW will be more likely to escape. In Screen and Simmonds (2010), they seem to be using averages for 1.5 degree concentric circular strips. There is no doubt about the summer increase in humidity and associated summer and early fall increase in incoming LW. Of course their use of averages for that analysis makes my evenness point moot. It doesn't address the other seasons (no increase in humidity in that study) nor the effect of weather patterns (on evenness). -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 06:36 AM on 3 January 2011Are we too stupid?
Hi Embb, I just saw your question. I have answered it too many times already. Read the papers by Hardin, Axelrod and Milinski and become wiser, my friend. Happy New Year! -
Albatross at 06:30 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Re Argus @90, Just a quick follow up. BP's post @73 was directed at Archiesteel. My post @85 was not made directly in response to BP's post@73-- I should have been clear about that. Anyhow, as it turns out I have corrected two claims made by BP in 73. Specifically, I corrected his erroneous claim about the globe being cooler than average in December @85 (made before your whining @90). And his erroneous claim about the alleged decrease in WV over the Arctic being "depleted fast" was corrected @105. Other posters have also dealt with erroneous/misleading claims made by BP @73 and elsewhere. And maybe it is time for those in denial about AGW, such as you, to ponder this figure of global temperatures:
One has to be a hard core denialist (including things that I cannot say here) to be trying to argue that the globe is cooling in one of (if not the) warmest years on record. Really the desperation of the wannabe skeptics is truly pathetic and mind boggling.
-
Albatross at 06:14 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Argus, "and the first uses of cherry-picking temperatures that I can find, are from dhogaza (#24 and #32)." Let us regroup here and go back to this claim made @19 "An all time record cold spell in Europe, however, is worth nothing" Actually, it was this comment made by Argus and his/her strawman accusation of "warmists" cherry-picking which started the whole "cherry-picking" fiasco. And for the record, those who know dhogaza know that he was being sarcastic when he made his alleged "cherry-pick". Both you, Argus, and BP have made several claims that have been demonstrated to be patently false. What do you then do-- move the goal posts or continue with yet more gish-gallop. This behaviour by you and BP is now bordering on trolling, and I would not be surprised if John or someone else has to clean up the mess left on this thread by you guys over the next couple of days Please stop with the gish-gallop (feel free to go to another forum if you want to do that), and please remind yourselves what the topic of this thread is about. I'll help: BP and Argus and fellow "skeptics": "Has anthropogenic global warming stopped (and by that I do not mean slowed down). If so, when exactly? If claiming that is has, please back up your claims with some science, data or statistics. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:07 AM on 3 January 2011A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives
Never has so many made so much about so little. The Yooper -
Argus at 05:55 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
villabolo #116, and muoncounter #117, That's roughly what I meant: "colder and snowier winters for Europe, Asia and parts of North America", And they thought they'd never see snow again in England... Climate is hard to predict. -
Argus at 05:49 AM on 3 January 2011Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
archiesteel, #102: "Contrarians started with the cherry-picking, the only reason people gave counter-examples was to illustrate that cherry-picking. Don't lie in our faces and expect us to believe you." I have gone through the history of this thread, and the first uses of cherry-picking temperatures that I can find, are from dhogaza (#24 and #32). After that I gave some counter-examples. -
Did Global Warming stop in
1998,1995,2002,2007, 2010?
Eric (skeptic) - A question of clarification, if you please. Do you mean that monthly averages over large areas are (a) insufficient information to determine radiative balances, or (b) we are incapable of measuring such averages? I thought we were doing a decent job of measuring the averages, through satellite observations and confirmatory surface back-radiation measurements. And I cannot understand arguing that long term regional averages are inappropriate to measure long term climate. -
The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award
memoryvault - When you wrote "The atmosphere does not "heat" the oceans. Not by radiative forcing nor by any other method. The oceans "heat" the atmosphere." you are quite correct. If when you mean "Heat" you mean net transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the ocean. The actual net (summed) flow is sunlight->ocean->atmosphere->space, or in more detail: Heat Transfer (net energy flow) sunlight->ocean and atmosphere ocean->atmosphere and space atmosphere->space The rate of any of these is dependent on the difference in temperatures between them. The thing is, a warm IR absorbing/radiating atmosphere reduces the effective temperature difference between the ocean and space (the final destination for the energy from sunlight). And hence it's harder for the ocean to dump energy at any particular temperature - it accumulates and warms the ocean. Radiant energy scales with T^4, so this isn't open-ended warming. These are pretty much greenhouse basics, memoryvault - I suggest you take a look at Has the greenhouse effect been falsified for an overview of the mechanics.
Prev 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Next
