Recent Comments
Prev 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 Next
Comments 103301 to 103350:
-
Albatross at 09:35 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Adrian, Please direct us to the official data source which leads to believe that "Then you will see the 70s where very cold and there was a lot of famine." Please also provide sources to support your claim that "there was "a lot of famine" in the seventies. I found this list, and it doesn't support your claim. And agin I fail to see what any of this has to do with "Twice as much Canada, same warming climate" -
Marcus at 09:30 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Muoncounter is right, Adrian. The temperature anomolies are based off the average temperatures for 1969-1990 (which includes the 1970's, obviously). Most of the 1970's were no more than -1 degree C below this average, whereas its clear that the bulk of the 1900-1930 period was closer to -1 to -2 degrees C below this average. -
Marcus at 09:27 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
There were also drought-related famines across the bulk of Africa during much of the 1980's & 1990's Adrian-so what's your point? Global Warming is expected to accelerate Hydrologic Cycles-which essentially means more severe droughts & more severe flooding-neither of which spells a bright future for expanding agriculture. I also wouldn't pin much hope on the unlocking of Northern Tundra to make up for significant losses of prime agricultural land closer to the equator. Most of the Tundra regions lack sufficient soil nutrients & also don't get enough sunlight to grow the crops needed to feed 6 billion people. This suggests that future famines will make anything from the 1970's-or the 1980's-look like a walk in the park! -
muoncounter at 09:25 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
#43: "a lot of famine. Historical fact" Here is a database of sorts of global famines. Take your pick as to which decade was worse. As far as the 70s colder than the teens? Every climate data says not! -
JMurphy at 09:20 AM on 25 November 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
WHATDOWEKNOW wrote : "If everybody in the room agrees and all nod there heads; now that's when I, as a scientist, get scared, really scared." A room full of people agree with the theory of evolution and nod their heads when someone states that the theory is correct. WHATDOWEKNOW gets scared, really scared... -
muoncounter at 09:16 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#97: "'seriously not understand the basic concept of net change?'" I just don't recognise any other." Perhaps that's the problem. Here is a summary of 2nd Law statements from a class at MIT. Note the figure below, which appears under the statement: No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. The key word is sole, which appears in bold in the original for good reason.The caption states for T1 less than T2 this is not possible. However, we know that both objects radiate, albeit at different wavelengths. Some of the cooler object's radiation is absorbed by the warmer; however, more total energy is transferred from warmer to colder. The 2nd Law is satisfied and the greenhouse effect still works. As for the rest, you can talk QED if you like, but that will not help you answer any of CBD's excellent points.
-
adrian smits at 09:10 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
yooper I'm not talking about the adjusted data. Just the raw please.Then you will see the 70s where very cold and there was a lot of famine.Historical fact by the way. -
Bibliovermis at 08:52 AM on 25 November 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Whatdoweknow, Different datasets provide different results due to having different base reference periods. The global temperature rise has not halted. The 2000s were the warmest decade on record, and all indicators show that the Earth is still accumulating heat. Is global warming still happening? (argument #4) Would you be scared of an entire room of scientists nodding in agreement that the Earth is a distorted spheroid? -
Daniel Bailey at 08:22 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Re: adrian smits (40) Sir, not to downplay your personal experiences nor the death of perhaps millions to various causes, but there is much in your comment that is in error. I won't delve deeply into any of them so as to not go too far off-topic, but briefly: 1. The 70's were not the coldest decade in the past 80 or 90 years. Not even close:Temperatures over a period of time are tracked via anomalies (to reduce the noise in the data to natural variability and to see the signal, if any, emerging from the background). We've experienced a 0.8 degree C rise over the past century. We're committed to about another 1.4 degree C additional rise (short term) no matter if we cut CO2 emissions to zero (which ain't happening anyway). Long term feedbacks maybe an additional 2+ degrees C beyond that (after we're both dead, so who cares exactly how much). Here's a nice graphic shows both temperatures and CO2 (in case anomalies are too funky). 2. CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because it is the control knob for the worlds' thermostat. 3. We know it's coming from us. 4. It'll do more harm than good. The Yooper
-
WHATDOWEKNOW at 08:16 AM on 25 November 2010It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
I stand corrected on the two other data-sets with 2006 as the warmest year on record. On the other hand, why aren't these 3 data-sets pinpointing the same year? Nevertheless, the solar torque cycle and PDO coincide beyond a shadow of a doubt, as well as the ENSO cycle. The "dude" (calling researches that present other valid arguments "dudes" and not climatologists: those that suite your thinking... is nothing but self-justification: now go and look that up!) forecast every single la nina and el nino event correct to the month when each peaked. Using his work, this can be done years in advance. The developing la nina was already in the books... sorry but just a hard fact! It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sun influences the oceans and atmosphere and not the other way around. It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that peak el ninos and la ninas have increased and decreased respectively with the exact same and absolutely linear rate; as I have shown, paralleling the PDO cycle. It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that ENSO events influence global temperatures. Considering that the ENSO cylce and PDO cycle's events coincide, as I clearly pointed out in my earlier comments, PDO therefore also influences global atmospheric temperatures. It is also beyond a shadow of a doubt that global (atmospheric) temperatures have increased since the 1970s but that since (1998 or 2006 as you may will) this increase has at least halted. The most important question is thus: what has caused this increase and what has caused the stabilizing to declining trend in the last several years? Given the above, PDO, ENSO and solar (torque) cycles need to be taken into account when trying to answer these questions. Once taken into account, the impact of ever increasing CO2 levels may maybe not be as dramatic as some make/may believe, which in it self is nothing wrong with. Finally, what makes you believe I am not a professional? Are you? And in science it is absolutely normal to have utterly different opinions about the same research topic! That's what drives science and our understanding forward. If everybody in the room agrees and all nod there heads; now that's when I, as a scientist, get scared, really scared. But then again self-justification is all about: don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind. Or as Lord Molson said it best: I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come. Better yet, Richard Feyman puts it like this: "It doesn't matter how beautiful the guess is, or how smart the guesser is, or how famous the guesser is; if the experiment disagrees with the guess, then the guess is wrong. That's all there is." And that of course goes for the skeptics as well as the non-skeptics! -
Albatross at 08:10 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
Adrian @40, I think it wishful thinking to hope that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will alleviate droughts. Please watch this: Source here. OK, so you say that is just a projection. But observations show that the area affected by droughts has been increasing. Anyhow, what has this got to do with the fact that the high latitudes are warming rapidly, and with the fact that the station drop out over Canada, if anything, underestimates the degree of warming? -
damorbel at 08:02 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #96 Bibliovermis, you wrote:- "Do you seriously not understand the basic concept of net change?" I just don't recognise any other. BTW I have had a copy of Tyndall's articles for some years now and I see no fault in them, although there have been many developments in thermal physics since he wrote them. In particular the roles of kinetic theory, quantum theory and thermodynamics in thermal physics; all three of these emerged because older theories did not explain experimental observations. Kinetic theory resolved the behaviour of heat in gases and lead to more efficient heat engines; thermodynamics not only extended kinetic theory to the general problems of heat in solids and liquids but also to chemical reactions. None of these resolved the observations of radiative heat transfer, it was Max Planck who opened that door, it is best explained these days by quantum electrodynamics (QED). You will need to understand QED if you wish to get a grip of the efficiency of energy processes in lasers. -
adrian smits at 07:56 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
During the 1970's we had some fairly serious famines around the world. Milions of people starved to death.It also happened to be the coldest decade in the last 80 or 90 years.I was a farmer back then and remember reading stories about crop failures across the northern hemisphere.Both drought and cold weather where taking there tole.I am only to happy in fact praying that the little bit of extra co2 we are putting into our atmosphere will prevent another decade like that one,although I doubt we can make that much of a differece -
Bibliovermis at 07:32 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, I see that I made a mistake on this object A vs. object B point. Object A would be warming (i.e. receiving a net flow of energy) from energy flowing from a relatively warmer object, object C. It would be receiving energy from the cooler object B, but would be emitting more energy to it. Again, that is what "net" means. Do you seriously not understand the basic concept of net change? -
kdkd at 07:25 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
KL # Various I see you still can't get over the idea that you've got to look at more than just the temperature data. -
Bibliovermis at 07:24 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, It does not matter where the energy flows in from. Energy is energy, regardless of the temperature of the emitting object. Energy flowing from cooler object B to warmer object A does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because more energy flows from warmer object A to cooler object B. That is what "net" means - more energy flows to relatively cooler objects than flows from them. I am still wondering if you had never heard of Tyndall's work before I referenced it here. -
kdkd at 07:22 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
BP #83 If you're going to post conspiracy theory nonsense, at least either present evidence, or make it clear that you're "joking" -
Phila at 07:07 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Eric, My concern about your remarks re: Wegman is that plagiarism is something that can actually be demonstrated pretty easily to laypeople, and is generally agreed to indicate dishonesty or incompetence. Everyone ought to be able to recognize plagiarism, and to understand the problems with it, regardless of where they stand on AGW. A kneejerk defense of the WR, at a time when plagiarism experts have found serious grounds for concern, is not "skeptical" as I understand the term. Neither is calling these concerns "politically motivated"; whatever the various motivations may be for the various investigations into the WR's sourcing and attribution, the evidence produced so far goes to the heart of Wegman's credibility and can't simply be ignored or downplayed. Attempting to dismiss the accusations (and the evidence) on this basis amounts to an ad hominem argument, at best. More to the point, you claim in #27 that it's good to be "neutral" about the WR, despite having previously insisted that the report is "factual" and the attacks on it are "politically motivated." That's a bit of a double standard, isn't it? -
damorbel at 07:03 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #89 Tom Dayton, between two places there is no other kind of energy flow than net energy. You write:- "Object A's net energy gain/loss is a gain of 100-80=20, so object A warms" But you do not mention where the 'in flowing energy' comes from, I do not wish to suggest you think it comes from an object B or place B at a lower temperature, which of course would conflict with the 2nd Law -
muoncounter at 06:50 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#84: "Take a balloon full of O2/N2 mixture and measure its temperature ... add some CO2," Those experiments are done, although usually with bottles; you can see them on youtube if you look. When you put both an 'air' bottle and a bottle with extra CO2 under a source of external radiation, the CO2 containing bottle attains a higher temperature. "Replace all the O2/N2 mixture with CO2, do you expect a temperature gradient anywhere?" That's just nonsense, as your PS2 required temperature equilibrium. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:36 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Eric... You're right. I have no evidence that Wegman would not respond. It is purely an assumption on my part. None-the-less, it's you who is dragging me into a conversation that I did not initiate nor previously participated in. I'm merely saying that I think you're coming to rash conclusions about Briffa's work without knowing the full details. My experience is that scientists generally have extremely good reasons for presenting their material the way they do. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:33 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Daniel Bailey, thanks I will look into it further. BTW, it appears that Wegman has been instructed to not comment "When contacted by phone, Wegman said, `I'm very aware of this report, but I have already been asked by this university to refrain from commenting on this issue..." http://thebrilliantstories.com/prominent-climate-science-critic-investigated-at-varsity/452234/ So I withdraw my suggestion above, but I still ask that people try to be neutral. -
Paul D at 06:29 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
fydijkstra: "Our interpretation of the facts is always coloured by our frame of reference, our theoretical background." Interpretation of the facts?? You start the sentence with a statement that means nothing. What people do is interpret the texts, they then 'colour' what they have read using their frame of reference. But what you have left out, is that the author is the person that knows the original meaning in the texts. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:03 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Re: Eric (skeptic) (27) Look up the USA Today article. The USA Today contacted 3 independent experts on plagiarism & published their thoughts on the Wegman Report. I won't further colour your opinion on it; look it up, make up your own mind. The Yooper -
JMurphy at 05:57 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
More on the differences between deaths from cold and heat : The number of extra deaths occurring in England and Wales last winter fell despite the coldest weather for 14 years. As Marcus stated, it has always seemed intuitive to me that heat is generally more dangerous than cold, not only because of the difficulty in being able to cool the body down but also because of the added diseases (malaria, etc.) that come with warmer weather. Also, many of the world's major, developed-world population centres seem to be nearer to the poles than to the equator, and most Scandinavian countries seem to be able to combine first-rate economic and social indices along with the cold, snow and ice. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:56 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Rob, here is the difference. Daniel Bailey (#7) threw up the charge of malfeasance and now you claim, without evidence, that Wegman cannot be contacted about it. I am glad you are neutral about that charge as you should be. What I did was ask if someone would defend the claim made in the post about Briffa's desire to fully explain the uncertainty. It is rather obvious that he did not have that desire as the paper that Marco posted demonstrates (a counterexample of willingness to fully explain uncertainty). Briffa's method is not commonplace or (since it is novel), not supported by or derived from previous methods. I welcome any evidence to the contrary and will read whatever is presented. -
Tom Dayton at 05:54 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, you are being confused by the term "heat." That is a common confusion, because that term is used in multiple ways, sometimes loosely. In the case of the second law, that term means the net flow of energy. The second law says nothing about the constituent two flows of energy in the two directions, only about the final result. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:49 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Eric... I might add here: I've not been making any claims about the WG nor have I even engaged in any conversation about the WR. It's an interesting issue to me. I've been keeping up with the news about the WR lately. I'm interested to hear what happens with the plagiarism charges. But I'm willing to stay on this sidelines of that issue for now until I understand it better. -
Bibliovermis at 05:49 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Please explain how that quoted comment contradicts SB. The second law of thermodynamics says net heat always flows in the direction of the colder place. -
damorbel at 05:44 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #88 Bibliovermis you write:- "Every object in existence emits energy is all directions and the energy flows into all surrounding objects regardless of their temperature." So the T^4 Stefan Boltzmann thermal radiation law is quite mistaken? I suggest you are on dodgy ground here! The second law of thermodynamics says heat always flows in the direction of the colder place, it doesn't matter whether it is by conduction, convection or radiation that's what the experiments (and common experience) show. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:39 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Eric... LOL! I don't think Wegman wants to hear from me (nor is the WR something I'm willing to dig deep into at this moment). Which, honestly, is the big difference here. I think if you really dig in and fully inform yourself on Briffa's work he will gladly respond to your questions. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:34 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Marco and Rob, perhaps you are right. The online debate in general has done that to many on both sides. Rob, will you contact Wegman? -
JMurphy at 05:32 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
fydijkstra wrote : "Warmists claim that the 4 independent investigations of ClimateGate have fully exonerated the group of climate scientists around Jones and Mann. No conspiracy, no perverting peer review, no fraud. Nothing. And the message stands upright: the climate has changed unprecedentedly and will change dangerously, if we don’t act now. The evidence has become even stronger since ClimateGate!" Rational people look at the outcome of the three main investigations (which are you claiming as the fourth - the one into Mann ?) and see the dismissal of all the baseless conspiracy theories. No surprise there. The only ones surprised are those who are like the 9/11 troofers who dismiss anything that goes against their specific conspiracy belief. Nothing has really changed but since none of the enquiries really looked into the evidence behind AGW, it is difficult to know where the second half of your paragraph is coming from - probably your own interpretation of the enquiries ? fydijkstra wrote : "Sceptics consider the independent investigations as white washing. The investigations yielded some heavy critics on climate scientists and the IPCC, but this was hidden in very polite recommendations. Maybe nothing illegal has been done, but the hidden critical comments confirm that climate scientists should not hide uncertainties, and should be open for alternative explanations of the facts. Exactly what sceptics have been saying for two decades! And what is that evidence that has become stronger in the previous 12 months? Which paper has definitely confirmed the warmist view." No, those who wish to deny AGW consider the results to be "white washing". Real sceptics would be glad that the basis behind the work of CRU, etc. have been found to be strong. Real sceptics would be working to make sure that the science is as good as it can be, and would be making sure that there is as firm a basis for the science as is possible. As for the "hidden critical comments", I suppose it takes the mind of a so-called skeptic to be able to find those 'hidden truths' which escape the rest of us. I don't know where you got the idea of being "open for alternative explanations of the facts" either. More 'hidden truths' or just your interpretation again ? If you are still asking for proof of AGW, you obviously haven't been reading anything on this site over the last year. That would be a surprise...not ! fydijkstra wrote : "Could it be, that both sides of the ClimageGate debate suffer from this kind of blindness? And could it be, that the truth is in the middle?" No, I'm afraid not. The blindness is experienced by those who wish to deny AGW (who are blind to anything that goes against their particular beliefs), and who are prepared to argue for one explanation one day, and another the next. That is selective blindness but it can be cured by opening of the eyes and the mind. As in the so-called differences between evolutionists and creationists, you are either on the side of science or you are on the side of personal/religious/political belief - there is no middle-ground and those claiming that there is, are aware that their own arguments are unpersuasive to all but the most gullible. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:27 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Eric @ 19... Rather than making assumptions about Briffa's methods and intentions you should probably go deeper into the source research material. I believe you might find the answers to the questions that are popping up for you. And even then if you have nagging questions about why he presented his work as he did after reading and fully informing yourself on his work, contact Briffa with your questions. As long as you remain polite and brief, I've found all the prominent scientists in this field to be very eager to help people understand their work. I've corresponded with a number of them myself on various occasions. -
Tom Dayton at 05:27 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, when Bibliovermis wrote "net energy flow is zero," the word "net" means the difference between the incoming and outgoing energy for each object. Let's say object A has 100 units of energy coming in and 80 units going out. Object A's net energy gain/loss is a gain of 100-80=20, so object A warms. -
Bibliovermis at 05:24 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Yes, both statements are correct. Every object in existence emits energy is all directions and the energy flows into all surrounding objects regardless of their temperature. When the net energy flow is zero, there is no temperature change. When there is a difference in the energy flows, the temperature changes. Did you not know about Tyndall's work before I referenced it? -
JMurphy at 05:20 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
fydijkstra wrote : "The discussions about ClimateGate on this site show an interesting feature: observations and interpretations of facts are never objective. Our interpretation of the facts is always coloured by our frame of reference, our theoretical background." In this instance, there is only one fact (which cannot be interpreted and which can either be accepted or denied) : Three enquiries have found no substance for any of the accusations. fydijkstra wrote : "Let’s simply call them warmists. This is not name calling, it’s just the use of a word to characterize a group." So what about those who think the world is warming but that it is all natural ? They can't be called 'warmists' too ? Or can they ? Or is 'warmist' a desperate name used by so-called skeptics in the belief that it makes their own beliefs seem somehow more normal ? fydijkstra wrote : "There are also people who believe, that the climate has always changed, that human activities do have a certain influence on the climate, but that natural climate fluctuations are dominant, and that we should not be too worried, because mankind has shown to be able to adapt to climate change during at least 100,000 years. Let’s simply call them sceptics. This is not name calling, it’s just the use of a word to characterize a group." No, let's call them what they in fact are : those who want to believe anything but AGW, so they will argue one thing, then another (possibly the opposite) so they can argue against AGW no matter what. Perhaps we can call them 'denialists' ? I mean, your rationale there is so contorted, it is impossible to read it with a straight face. Who doesn't think that "the climate has always changed" ? Anyone ? Who believes in the dominance of "natural climate fluctuations" without any evidence - only a belief that there must be something there in the background, perhaps, with a cycle of a few thousand/tens of thousands/whatever years, maybe ? Those who prefer to deny. Who believes that we can adapt easily enough and that we shouldn't worry, everything will turn out alright in the end, possibly ? Just like 'we' did thousands of years ago...when there were hardly any people, no political borders and freedom to roam at will. Those who prefer to deny. This is not name-calling : this is the reality of those who wish to deny AGW. -
damorbel at 05:17 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #86 Bibliovermis I have no problem with Tyndall's observation that H2O vapour and CO2 absorb and emit radiation and, as you write:- "If there is a net difference in the energy flows, yes. If the net energy flow is zero, no." But in #83 CBDunkerson wrote:- "Every object in existence emits energy in all directions and this energy flows into all surrounding objects regardless of their relative temperatures." You can't both be correct. -
Marco at 04:57 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Eric, I suggest you are not a skeptic, but an ill deemer. -
Bibliovermis at 04:46 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, The experiment you are describing was first conducted by John Tyndall in 1859 & the results published in 1861. American Institute of Physics: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connection of Radiation, Absorption, and ConductionTell me something, as the energy flows do the temperatures of the objects change?
If there is a net difference in the energy flows, yes. If the net energy flow is zero, no. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:45 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Marco, thank you, that is a great example. Ljungqvist shows in figure 3 how the proxies vary by shading two standard deviations in temperature from the proxy means versus time. His use of two standard deviations is justified in figure 2A and by the fact that 2 standard deviations is only +/- 0.12 degrees in the verification period. This depiction is not by any means "arbitrary". In contrast the claim above is that "Many of Briffa’s emails actually suggest a desire to ensure that uncertainty was fully explained." But instead we see an arbitrary calculation and coloring of a reconstruction "scoring" (quotes in the original text) which simply ignores the fact that each of the reconstructions had at least one input data set in common. Not just arbitrary but misleading due to the overlap. So where is the rigor that Briffa claims to want to pursue? I suggest that he settled for "gets the message over" instead. -
damorbel at 04:21 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #83 CBDunkerson you write:- "Every object in existence emits energy in all directions and this energy flows into all surrounding objects regardless of their relative temperatures" Tell me something, as the energy flows do the temperatures of the objects change? If the temperatures change (they will!), can you say how and why? -
Albatross at 04:20 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
KL, Your "arguments" make no sense whatsoever. Do you now deny that the planet has warmed since 1960? The other day you told me that you agree the planet has warmed. So why keep a specific chronology if it is well-established that the trees in the Yamal region, for some reason, are no longer behaving as suitable thermometers? You seem to think that the "divergence problem" applies to all the dendro chronologies, it does not. Would you rather that they used misleading and erroneous paleo data even though scientists knew from multiple, independent observational data that the planet had warmed quite a bit since 1960? Sorry, but you really do need to learn more about paleo reconstructions and dendro chronology, before opining on these matters. Your comments thus far, indicate that you are only too happy to believe/see whatever fits your ideology, even if it means ignoring the facts and science. Nothing nefarious is going on here; really there isn't. And the data were not "simply" discarded as you claim. As you and others have been told multiple times, several papers have been written on the "divergence problem" going back to 1998. -
damorbel at 04:15 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #81 Ned you write:- "What do you mean when you say "simply by being there"? Taken literally, that's an absurd suggestion, and one that has nothing whatsoever to do with the greenhouse effect." Take a balloon full of O2/N2 mixture and measure its temperature at various places, top bottom etc.; add some CO2, do you expect any of the temperatures to change? Replace all the O2/N2 mixture with CO2, do you expect a temperature gradient anywhere? If you found one, would you be able to use it to drive an engine? PS1 You can heat the balloon with radiation if you wish. PS2. Temperatures must have stabilised before you do the measurements, just like in the atmosphere. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:09 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
fydijkstra.... I would suggest that the reason we have independent panels perform detailed reviews of issues like this is because of "inattentional blindness." The reviews are not a product of that malady. The are rational responses to it. If each of the six independent investigations had returned different conclusions we would still have an issue here of what was going on. We would have no way to evaluate what was whitewash and what was reality. But that is not what has happened. Every one of the independent reviews has returned essentially the same conclusion that there is nothing there. The chances of six different panels coming to nearly the exact same conclusions should be a strong indicator of where reality lay. You might not believe this from my posts here but I am, by nature, an extremely skeptical person. But when I am presented with convincing and overwhelming evidence I believe that I am capable of altering my position. My problem with so many of the "so called" skeptics is, they lack this very basic capacity. -
Albatross at 04:05 AM on 25 November 2010Twice as much Canada, same warming climate
GC, Please read the first sentence of this NOAA article. Also, please look at this graphic -
CBDunkerson at 03:59 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Damorbel and h-j-m, you've had the flaws in your position explained with simple everyday examples to the contrary which even a child could understand. You've been pointed to numerous resources which disprove your ideas at various levels of technical explanation. Yet you stubbornly repeat nonsensical mis-statements of the second law of thermodynamics. Every object in existence emits energy in all directions and this energy flows into all surrounding objects regardless of their relative temperatures. Since the amount of energy released by objects increases with the amount of energy they contain this inherently means that NET energy flows always run from 'hot' to 'cold'. Your belief that this means energy can ONLY flow from 'hot' to 'cold' is simply nonsense, and rejected as such by all but the outermost looney fringe of modern physics. Energy enters the Earth's climate from the Sun. Greenhouse gases delay the escape of this energy from the atmosphere just as insulation on a house delays the escape of heat generated by a furnace. This delay in energy escape means that the steady incoming energy from the Sun/furnace is supplemented by retained energy which has not escaped yet due to the greenhouse gases/insulation. Thus, the Earth/house is warmer with the greenhouse gases/insulation than without. Really. Insulation on your home DOES actually exist. It DOES allow your house to be warmed to higher temperature than it could without the insulation. This is reality... not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. You have experienced it actually happening... so why cling to a misinterpretation of physics which says it CANNOT happen? -
h-j-m at 03:54 AM on 25 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
KR, first you say my argument is wrong because any electromagnetic radiation hitting any mater will get absorbed. When I specifically asked tor some evidence for that claim I failed so see any presented. But let me help you out. I assume you have already seen diagrams showing certain types of matter do absorb electromagnetic radiation at different rates depending on the wavelength constituting so called absorption bands. As a rule they show also bands where no absorption takes place. I assume this might constitute some evidence to back my argument. Now you come and accuse me of a logical fallacy saying I am missing necessary technical background. I am ready to accept that if you would be so kind as to explain what is missing in my argument that renders it invalid. -
Albatross at 03:54 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Ned @13, Yes, and that is just one of many examples of extremely poor scholarship by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) and in the Wegman report. But there is a long and sordid history of incompetence by skeptics here. DeepClimate solidly refuted McKitrick's misinformation about the IPCC here. Gavin Schmidt soundly refuted McKitrick and Michaels (2007) here and McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is refuted here. The 2004 paper by M&M, despite allegations of "gate keeping" by "skeptics" and despite the fact that it had been refuted was included in in AR4. In fact, there are also several papers by other scientists "skeptical" of AGW (or skpetical that the warming won't be bad) in AR4 , including papers by Douglass, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Pielke etc....and that is just one chapter in AR4. And as for "attacks" and spreading misinformation about climate scientists, McKitrick and McIntyre are more than happy to do that, see here for just one example. And McIntyre and McKitrick have close ties to the Barton and Wegman scandal too. The shoddy science and games repeatedly come from those claiming to be "skeptics". And look whose name keeps repeatedly coming up in that context.... Here is a link to a list of papers by "skeptics" which have been debunked/refuted. -
Marco at 03:51 AM on 25 November 2010Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
Eric, please see this paper to see a reconstruction using proxies that are hardly ever used. Most, if not all of these are not part of the prior reconstructions mentioned in the Wegman report. Interesting outcome of Ljungqvist's paper? His reconstruction looks very similar to Mann 2008, despite using completely different proxies. No use of methodology that creates hockeysticks according to McIntyre. No "Inverted tiljander". None of that. And yet, the result is again the same. Somewhere someone should start to realise that all the complaints by contrarians may be nitpicking about the fourth decimal. But I guess not.
Prev 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 Next