Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 Next
Comments 115201 to 115250:
-
RSVP at 15:58 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
In general, it seems warmists are looking for something terribly exotic to explain global warming. An anecdote from the past might help illustrate this situation... Ohm's Law (V=IR) is an algebraic rule that describes the relationship between voltage, current and resistance. It was named after Ohm, who's work was rejected initially by the top scientific circles of his time for being too simple. To them, a description of electricity just could not be that simple, (and as it turns out there are many other formulas needed besides Ohm's law to deal with electricity and magnetism.) However, the point is, Ohm received posthumous credit only after someone else (with more clout in the scientific community) arrived at the same conclusion. If it was difficult for scientists to reach consensus as in this case where experimentation is limited to a lab setting, imagine a hot potato (no pun intended) like global warming. -
gpwayne at 15:51 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Gosh David, you were quick off the mark. I also suspect you may have children (I don't) because your exposition seems authorative :) (I'd only add that perhaps it was a naughty invisible scientist, whose proof that climate change isn't being caused by us has similar properties - only deniers can see it). -
David Horton at 15:19 PM on 17 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Nicely done Graham, well summarised. Your comment "So far, we look rather more like children crying ‘I didn’t touch it...it fell all on its own’, than adults accepting responsibility for what we do" doesn't quite do justice to the denialist approach though. To continue your metaphor, they are more like the child who says "it broke on its own". "No it didn't". "Well, it was an earthquake" "No, there wasn't an earthquake" Well it was an elephant who escaped from the circus and came in our house and knocked the vase down" "There is no circus, and elephants wouldn't knock down one vase without leaving other tracks". "Well, it was a ghost of a naughty child and they are invisible and no one can see them except me" ,,,,, -
kdkd at 15:12 PM on 17 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
gallopingcamel #195 The source you cite seems to be partisan, and despite its origins from a university very little cited in the peer reviewed literature. Via this source I discovered that the primary author is has the following affiliations and attitudes (via the link above, and with plenty of links in the original source for fact checking purposes):Gabriel Calzada is a founding member of the Prague Network, an international grouping of institutions aimed at countering panic connected with global warming. He is also a fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think tank that in recent years has accepted funding from ExxonMobil [ (who have] spent over $16 million to fund climate change skeptic groups as part of a “tobacco-like disinformation campaign on global warming science.” [)] Since the study was publish, Calzada has become a popular speaker at the events sponsored by these groups and has appeared frequently on Cable news shows in which the hosts and producers are opposed to green jobs. He has yet to appear on any show that has made any inquiry about his methodology. Calzada is also the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, another libertarian think tank. The libertarian movement in Spain does not believe in taxes, so it is my guess that they would not support many programs paid for with tax dollars. Calzada is also an admitted climate change skeptic and recently spoke at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) hosted by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is another well-known hub of climate science denial. This year’s conference was its second effort on climate change, and attracted representatives from conservative and free enterprise groups around the world; many of their members and supporters deny climate change and work aggressively against renewable energy and environmental endeavors. A large number of the attendees also came from bodies funded by ExxonMobil and other fossil-fuel companies. Other big oil funded groups that have promoted the study include: The Institute for Energy Research (IER), Americans for Prosperity, and the American Energy Alliance (AEA), In a recent interview, (in Spanish) Calzada asserts that scientists are deeply divided as to the cause of global warming. He claims that solar and water vapor activity from the earth have a large impact on global warming and that human activity is minor in comparison. He questions if this small creation of ‘gases’ by human activity would have an impact compared to other natural activity. He also does not believe in the kyoto protocol and claims that the green economy is a way to to ‘ration’ economic activity. My understanding is that the vast majority of scientists (specifically those not paid by oil companies) are not divided over the causes of global warming.
So please find a more credible source not closely associated with the big oil/tobacco/denial for cash nexus if you want us to consider this kind of economic analysis seriously. From skimming Cadenza's report it strikes me that it's a very short term focused analysis of an economic response to a long term problem, but then I'm not an economist. -
Joe Blog at 14:52 PM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
adelady at 14:35 Im not disagreeing with Roberts article... i think it is a good summary. And what you have said could well be the main contributing factor... but how long is the record exactly? less than 10 years! Im just saying it may be premature to be drawing conclusions from such a short record in light of its history. TSI would not have been significantly different when ice sheets first started forming on Antarctica 45 million years ago... the faint sun paradox/the 30% figure of reduced solar iradiance is from 4billion years ago. Now glaciations in the northern hemisphere actually started around 15 mybp, when co2 wasnt that much higher than today. So in light of this, I just think it would not be surprising to see considerably different behaviors between the hemispheres main ice sheets in response to co2. -
adelady at 14:47 PM on 17 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
John Russell at 07:29 AM on 17 July, 2010 Total PERCEIVED transparency is the only option. Slightly skew but ..... surely one of the things people need to learn is that information, especially technical information doesn't come cheap. Not so long ago, if we wanted this stuff we'd have to either wait for a very expensive text to be published or pay heaps for photocopying or similar. You do genealogy research for your family, you pay for the copies of birth, death, estate documents. Nowadays the websites of some govt agencies offer some of this for free. If you really get into it, you *pay* to join a genealogy society. Research documents were not cost free when produced, archiving, librarians, websites, journals, seminar proceedings - every single thing costs money. I don't know about your political ideology, so this may be completely irrelevant. I'm often bemused by the advocates of money-is-god type politics, that they reel in horror if someone tells them that something they want (but don't personally value) costs real, actual cash. -
adelady at 14:35 PM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Joe Blog at 11:26 AM on 17 July, 2010 I'm not sure about your comment. You're referring to "CO2 alone" but you've not developed on Robert's comment on warming oceans. I'm no scientist, but it's fairly obvious from Robert's posts and from his answer above. Near-freezing water ... non-freezing water ... marginally warmer water ... will change the rate of ice flow into the sea. The water may seep, or flow, or rush, or swirl. But warmer means more ice loss. My reading tells me that the reason for warmer (even if unswimmable) water surrounding Antarctica would be much the same as the reason for warmer water in other places. -
gallopingcamel at 14:30 PM on 17 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP (#179) I knew we had something in common! Years ago I managed an engineering department with an acoustics laboratory dedicated to developing telephone components. Back then the good equipment was built by B&K but it was limited to frequencies above 10 Hz. I imagine that you are using much more sophisticated hardware. -
chudiburg at 14:28 PM on 17 July 2010We're heading into an ice age
Erin, If you click on the link for the source of figure 4, the author of the article addresses this. It has to do with expected low insolation variability for the time being. It is worth noting that this agrees with some predictions, but disagrees with others. The primary thing to take away from the study is that if we continue to release large amounts of CO2, then we could potentially delay the onset of glaciation indefinitely. McCloud, the 5000 gigatonnes CO2 emission is based on an estimate of how much we could potentially release if we burn all available fossil fuels. Thus, with the calculated forcing of that much CO2, we see an upper limit of 4 degrees warming. This study may not be the best source for looking at future temperature anomalies, however, because its purpose is to look at the potential for preventing the next glaciation. The scope of the study really isn't to make precise temperature anomaly predictions, but rather predict how much glaciation will be delayed under different emission scenarios. I would suggest clicking on the link to the study. As for your second question, yes there is potential for a positive feedback here. As water warms, its capacity for storing CO2 decreases, which will eventually lead to the oceans actually releasing CO2 as opposed to taking it in. I am fairly sure that most climate projections take this into account already. -
gallopingcamel at 14:11 PM on 17 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
There are enough large wind and solar projects out there (e.g. California, Denmark, Germany, Spain) to allow economic analyses to be made. Here is an analysis relating to Spain: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf One of the major selling points for renewables is that "green jobs" will be created. Dr. Calzada's analysis shows that for every "green job" created 2.2 other jobs are lost. Given that the majority on this thread are in favor of renewables and against Nuclear Power Plants, can you cite any projects that produce power at reasonable prices absent subsidies? -
NickD at 12:48 PM on 17 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Good post by Brian Angliss. -
Joe Blog at 11:26 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Robert Way at 09:33 No, i bought up the co2, because the Antarctic glaciation is a different kettle o fish than the northern hemisphere glaciations... there is a continent sitting on the pole. And i wouldn't expect it to behave similar to say green land... i wouldnt be betting on long term trends in Antarctica based on co2 alone. But time will be the judge on that. Also going back 45mybp TSI would not have significantly off set those elevated co2 levels... its not that long ago in the larger scheme o things. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:55 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
To add to that reply to Joe Blog... You also have to look at the rate of ice mass loss relative to all the other data related to global warming. When you look at any of the the above charts they paint an eerily similar curve to all the other charts. CO2 levels, global temps, etc. If these charts regarding ice mass loss were significantly dissimilar you might consider that something else is afoot. But the fact that they mirror all the other indicators of AGW you would have to be completely disingenuous to ignore a strong potential relationship. -
robert way at 09:33 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Joe Blog, to simply state that CO2 was 1000ppm at that time is a bit disingenuous don't you think? I think you should have perhaps included the phrase about solar being less and milankovich orbital cycles too. For me it doesn't make sense why you brought up CO2 unless you were trying to make a deceptive remark. But regardless, you're partially correct in your assessment. Oceans are causing most of Antarctic mass losses. But it is not a change in ocean currents but rather oceanic warming mixed with wind changes that bring the warmer water in. Why is the water warmer? Who knows, but I think it is fair to say that ocean waters have warmed significantly and that human influence must be considered during attribution. Also note that the West Antarctic ice sheet is a marine ice sheet so it would of course have a dependence more upon oceans than other regions. -
robert way at 09:27 AM on 17 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
Okay dude, you have to tone it down a little. The thomas et al. study I pointed to had nothing to do with antarctica but was rather about Greenland, it is entitled "A comparison of Greenland ice-sheet volume changes derived from altimetry measurements " and concludes that Radar alimetry overestimates gains at high altitudes by 75 Gt year. The Pfeffer et al. 2008 study is a good study. And it concludes that sea level rise will be greater than IPCC median predictions. I don't know why you even brought it up? Whose talking about sea level. Regardless Vermeer and Rahmstorf is newer and shows relation between temperature and sea level which is important. Maybe that's why they put it in? I haven't really seen Pritchard et al. 2009 being dated differently but sure. If you want to discuss mass balance estimates you can start by checking out the figure at the bottom of here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Response-to-Goddard.html About the IPCC (2007). Steig et al. 2009 conclude that Antarctica has warmed, particularly western portions. The IPCC is a meticulous document but also a political one and tends to not include the latest literature. IPCC models on ice losses do not include ice dynamical processes and thereby have been proven wrong time and time again as both Antarctic and Greenland mass losses are extensive. (See chen et al. 2009, Velicogna 2009, Rignot et al. 2008a, Rignot et al. 2008b, Cazenave et al. 2009 and so on). With all due respect. You aren't really making a whole lot of sense. You are throwing all kinds of evidence out there which only suggests that you are cherry picking the literature. -
robert way at 08:16 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
angliss, I didn't really catch on. Kinda just glanced at it. Sorry for the confusion. On the bright side, the first link actually was kinda interesting regardless. -
michael sweet at 08:06 AM on 17 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
Peter, Your posts always raise the level of discussion. Thank you for informing the rest of us. Is the decrease in heat in the first 100 meters from a La Nina? (I cannot penetrate the paywall). I would have thought surface heat content would have risen since ocean surface temperatures are currently so high. It is amazing how rapidly the science is advancing. The paper I cited as saying heat had not passed 3000 meters is only two years old. OHC is a difficult problem. Hopefully the scientists working on it will continue to rapidly advance the state of knowledge. Are you the Peter Hogarth who studies sea grass? -
Joe Blog at 07:40 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Interesting article. So, im reading this as ocean currents being the predominant driver in calving events in Antarctica? Makes sense, ice sheets first formed on there when co2 was around the 1000ppm, So the ice state there may be more driven by ocean events/ responses. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/people/Bromirski_Serg_MacAyeal.pdf This link here is on infragravity waves, and their inferred contribution to calving events in Antarctica. -
John Russell at 07:29 AM on 17 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
Riccardo #13 You miss my point. Of course I could look up the source of the quote myself -- in fact I did -- but if we are to win the argument that AGW is happening and the world should act on it, it's important to ensure that there is a real difference in the way the argument is presented on sites such as SkSc, as compared with the way the counter argument is presented on sites such as WUWT. I raised the point to highlight this. Total PERCEIVED transparency is the only option. -
angliss at 06:56 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Robert - I was trying to make a joke at Goddard's expense, actually. I guess it fell flat. -
AuntSally at 06:37 AM on 17 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
I propose we stop calling him "Lord.." and start calling him "Chris". :) -
muoncounter at 04:33 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Nice graphs! The big run up in the runoff curve in the mid-90s which matches the polar temperature anomaly uptick here. (Sorry for linking my own article). SMB is negative (presumably losing mass), but Precip/Runoff is positive?(or is that a measure of the quantity of runoff and so not meant to have a sign). I would of thought massice lost = massice calving + massice melting + masswater evaporating + massice sublimating. But it would appear that sublimation isn't a big factor. -
John Russell at 04:28 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
NickD: With regards to your question about warming and the loss of Antarctic ice, you might find it useful to take a look at the 10th of the popular sceptical arguments Antarctica is gaining ice. Thanks for the question. It's important that on this site real sceptics and 'don't knows' can find answers to their questions about climate science, explained with civility. Many people who use this site as a source of information -- like me -- started out being sceptical but, like all people with open minds, we were persuaded by the mass of evidence and clearly-obvious consensus among the scientific community. Best wishes. -
Alexandre at 04:18 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
quokka #22 Great post at Eli Rabett's. Really worth a read. Thanks. -
Ned at 03:53 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Van den Broeke et al. (2009) nicely break down Greenland's mass balance into its various components, including the effects of precipitation, runoff, sublimation, and discharge. John discusses that paper in his blog post Why is Greenland's ice loss accelerating? Here's a figure showing how total mass balance is being driven by both surface mass balance and discharge:
Greenland mass balance and its components Surface Mass Balance (SMB) and Discharge (D). Before 1996, D and hence SMB - D, are poorly constrained and therefore not shown.
and here's one that breaks down surface mass balance into its components:
Surface Mass Balance (blue) and its components precipitation (red), runoff (orange) and sublimation (green).
-
DarkSkywise at 03:46 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
That too, yes. :) -
Ned at 03:43 AM on 17 July 2010What's in a trend?
garythompson, just a caution about Chylek ... one of his recent papers is pretty much the ultimate example of erroneous results created by inappropriate selection of individual data points (see here and here). Problems with one paper don't necessarily carry over into others. But I would probably be a bit more careful when reading a new paper by Chylek, given that history. -
Ned at 03:34 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
JMurphy, you're right ... it looks like there's something wrong with the way the Search box is interacting with the database. Until John gets this straightened out, I guess Googling Abraham site:skepticalscience.com is the way to go. DarkSkywise, I'd say this is a nice illustration of how different methods applied to the same data set (the database of posts) can give inconsistent results even when nobody is deliberately tampering with the data! -
garythompson at 03:16 AM on 17 July 2010What's in a trend?
Humanity Rules, John or Muoncounter: I would like to read the Petr Chylek paper that HR speaks of in this comment section. Like Muoncounter I have never seen a good explanation why the two poles appear to have temperature trends going in different directions and this sounds like an explanation I have not heard before. Maybe John can post some portions on the web (unless that violates copyright laws or something like that). Many thanks in advance! -
DarkSkywise at 03:04 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Alternatively, you can just type "Abraham" in the Search box in the upper left corner of the page, and they all show up. Oh yes, that search box. (Speaking about hiding in plain sight.) :D But it's still a nice example of different researchers using different means and data sets, and all arriving at the same conclusion (i.e. "John Abraham's posts are real and do exist"), just like AGW. -
JMurphy at 02:57 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Ned, how come when I type in 'Abraham' (without the quote marks, or whatever they're called), I only get : Abraham reply to Monckton Facebook page to support John Abraham Monckton tries to censor John Abraham Podcasts interviews and Monckton bashing -
robert way at 02:50 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Angliss, Greenland does have surface melt. see http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/greenland_recordhigh.html or http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/Images/greenland_melt_pond.jpg Lots of melting there actually... -
angliss at 02:47 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Muoncounter - Greenland doesn't have surface melt, but it does sublimate! ;) -
robert way at 02:40 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Sean A, I understand that I should of perhaps gone through glacial flow mechanisms but ultimately part one covers some of it and I thought that would drag it out quite a bit to have to explain all the different mechanism for movement and everything that affects it. -
robert way at 02:37 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
muoncounter, Skeptics do often seize on the wingham et al. 2006 study. But its easy to refute as Thomas et al. 2008 proved that the satellite technology used in wingham et al. (radar altimetry) has a bias towards showing less ice losses. -
Ned at 02:23 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Alternatively, you can just type "Abraham" in the Search box in the upper left corner of the page, and they all show up. I use that search box all the time. It's a handy way of finding things when you want to search only the posts and not the comments (a google search for a commonly used term would bring up many threads in which that term might not have been used in the top post). For example, using John's search box at upper left, a search for "icesat" shows five posts. A google search for "icesat site:skepticalscience.com" shows about 15, mostly people mentioning it in the comments. Of course sometimes you're looking for stuff in the comments, in which case google is the way to go. -
quokka at 02:19 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
How well the University of St Thomas has acted should be applauded. Eli Rabett has published their correspondence here: A humble suggestion - support the University of St. Thomas -
muoncounter at 02:09 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Nicely written and very well-documented! Your last figure (6) does leave a window open: If I was a skeptic, I would seize the WH estimate and say 'Aha! No consensus!' NickD #4: Re "I am left with the impression that melting glaciers and ice sheets (specifically Antarctica and Greenland) are not necessarily evidence of global warming," see the line in Robert's text: "In Greenland, calving represents between 40 to 60% of total ablation (ice loss) whereas in Antarctica it represents a whopping 90% of total ablation." That suggests to me that Greenland's ice loss is 60-40% melt. Goddard's 'argument' that ice doesn't melt because the air temp is below freezing wouldn't apply; check the current temps in Greenland here (I just looked at Thule where its a comfortable 6C). -
Sean A at 02:04 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
(Although some of the comments that appeared while I was commenting do help.) -
Sean A at 02:02 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Nice series of articles. Can I suggest a follow-up post covering the basic science of glacial flow? This isn't quite a sufficient explanation: "Take for example that many of these locations are regions where ice is channelled from the interior of the ice sheet to outlet glaciers causing much higher velocities. Another thing to consider is that where the depth of ice is extremely thick, the ice can provide insulation and actually heat the bottom of the ice leading to basal lubrication and increased ice flow." -
NickD at 02:01 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Robert, I do appreciate the post and replies. It's always enjoyable and beneficial when those with extensive knowledge make themselves available for questions :) I certainly understand the point of the posts was not to prove global warming. You were addressing specific and incorrect claims, a generally thankless task! As I said, I was playing a bit of Devil's Advocate ;) Keep up the good work. -
robert way at 01:55 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Skywatcher, Yeah i was going to talk about that actually but then i'd have to get into the methods of movement and all that stuff. Ultimately it would lead to grounded below sea level portions and so on. I just thought that I had to cut it off somewhere. haha. Yeah I probably should of brought up the inland propagations but I found it hard to find studies other than the removal of buttressing ice shelves that really showed distinct evidence of it. I can think that some radar interferometry studies have found an inland increase of velocities but to generalize and say it could occur in all of those places is a bit of a stretch without having an idea as to the topographic constraints in the regions. -
robert way at 01:51 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Well NickD, To be absolutely honest Glaciologists and professionals in glaciology do not focus on attribution of warming. Whether warming is Anthropogenic or not, individuals in this field just try to report what is happening and what will happen under certain scenarios. I can tell you this, a warming planet will result in more ice being lost. If we cause the planet to warm further, more ice will be lost. This post wasn't meant to prove that AGW causes ice sheets to lose mass, it was to educate and disprove some common misconceptions on the blogosphere. But I can summarize it like this for you. Greenland is losing ice because of surface melt, surface meltwater reaching the bed of the glacier speeding it up, melting/collapse of ice shelves holding back glaciers and warm water causing grounding line retreat. There is one key variable to consider there, all those processes are induced and intensified by increased warmth. Antarctica is a bit of a different story. Ocean waters are causing grounding line retreat and bottom melt of glaciers which in turn can cause accelerations. Air temperatures and ocean temperatures are combining to remove some ice shelves which hold back glaciers also. The warm water coming in is the result of what is thought to be a change in wind patterns. Wind patterns change with warmth and so does the distribution of air masses. Any more questions, just ask. -
Mighty Drunken at 01:47 AM on 17 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
To post #35. Your reaction to the story on Erik Verlinde paper is interesting and has a bearing on the public's perception of science and therefore climate change. His paper “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” is interesting and not contrarian, it is simply a different way at looking at the origin of gravity - it also may be completely wrong as he says himself. To someone not well versed on the subject matter and how it is reported by the media can lead people to think there is a bunch of physicists who don't believe Einstein's theory. Sounds familiar? If Erik Verlinde approach gives the same predictions as Einstein's then science won't really care which one is correct. The question is do they match experiment? Lookup "Interpretation of quantum mechanics" to see a similar debate. Which one is correct is more philosophically interesting then it is scientifically important. -
skywatcher at 01:38 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Nice summary of Antarctic ice losses. I would add that one of the important processes allowing fast flow are weak debris/till covers at the beds of ice streams. I remember a presentation about the evolution of these covers at the Siple Coast streams, but can't recall the reference to confirm. The other goddard mis-info that really annoyed me was the idea that acceleration at the coast could not propagate inland quickly to drive thinning - blatantly totally wrong. Scambos et al (2004) provides an example on a smaller scale from the Antarctic peninsula (Larsen B shelf collapse). The acceleration happens right away both at the coast and inland in response to the change, with a gradual increase as the system heads towards a new equilibrium. -
NickD at 01:35 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
If I can play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, and speaking purely as a layperson who has a very basic understanding of most of your posts, I am left with the impression that melting glaciers and ice sheets (specifically Antarctica and Greenland) are not necessarily evidence of global warming, as much of the melt is due to factors generally unrelated to temperatures. Is this accurate? I'm trying to understand for myself, but also I am trying to put myself into the shoes of some who might read these posts and be left with the same impression and would subsequently cite your posts to argue that there's nothing we can do about Greenland and Antarctica melting. You get the idea... -
DarkSkywise at 01:32 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Since everybody is posting urls anyway, I might as well do the full versions: june 2: Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice june 4: Monckton Chronicles Part II: Here Comes the Sun june 6: Abraham reply to Monckton june 8: Monckton Chronicles Part III: Acid Reflux june 11: Monckton Chronicles Part IV: Medieval Warm Period (the preview worked, hope the submit works too!) -
JMurphy at 01:19 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
tobyjoyce, Part I is accessible from Part II, and is here : Part I -
tobyjoyce at 01:03 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Got some of the URLs tangled above. However, the point is made - these have not been removed. Passing Wind just could not find them, but they are difficult to find. -
tobyjoyce at 01:01 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Hare are 3 of Profesor Abraham's posts which did not come up with the Search command .. I used Google. Not sure what happened to Part I. Part II Part II ,a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-IV-Medieval-Warm-Period.html"> Part III
Prev 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 Next
