Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 Next
Comments 115251 to 115300:
-
JMurphy at 00:42 AM on 17 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
Ken Lambert wrote : 1970 is the era when we were going to have the next ice age and CO2GHG warming had not been pressing. Not true, and you've been on this site long enough to know. Selective memory ? "1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2." Or were you trying to refer to a specific event in the year 1970 ? -
carrot eater at 00:10 AM on 17 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Some little editing: The sentence with "ice cannot flow at high speeds when air temperatures are. " needs to be completed somehow. -
cynicus at 00:10 AM on 17 July 2010It's not bad
A bit far fetched maybe, but AGW is causing more space junk to threaten satellites and spacestations. The cooling of the stratosphere causes the atmosphere to contract which lowers the density of the upper atmosphere. This reduces drag on debris which therefore stays longer in orbit. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627663.000-climate-change-is-leaving-us-with-extra-space-junk.html -
DarkSkywise at 00:04 AM on 17 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Anymoo, I've joined Facebook (I had planned not to, being a member of far too many sites already), so I could become a supporting member of Prawngate. On the plus side, having just made such a Large Personal Sacrifice (oh dear, there are the first friendship requests pouring in already... what is this? an ambush? shoo!), it'll probably be Extremely Appreciated, which is nice. :) -
kdkd at 23:53 PM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
Ken, Unless you have new information (i.e. new peer reviewed studies which support your position), your argument (putting all of your eggs in one basket more like) is still not valid. This is because the one thing we can be sure of about the heat balance measurements are that significant components are insufficiently precise over short durations to measure small changes with sufficient accuracy to draw strong conclusions. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:49 PM on 16 July 2010Part Two: How do we measure Antarctic ice changes?
Robert Way “Thomas et al. 2008 ...” Whether it's this papers: A DOUBLING [?] in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.? There is such (a favorite of skeptics) fragment: “Annual accumulation has more than doubled in the last 150 years: the mean for 1855–1864 was 0.49 mweq y-1while for 1997–2006 it was 1.10 mweq y-1. At the beginning of the record annual accumulation is relatively stable until about 1930 when it begins to increase steadily. Following a slight reduction in accumulation in the late 1960s, the most rapid increase occurs in the latter part of the record with the mean accumulation rate from the mid-1970s onwards increasing to 0.95 mweq y-1. Note that for the post-1980 period even the lowest annual accumulation values are still greater than the highest accumulation values from the first half of the record (1855–1924).” IPCC 2007 report : “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, CONSISTENT WITH THE LACK OF WARMING REFLECTED IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES AVERAGED ACROSS THE REGION” ; “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain TOO COLD for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” Of course, growth of the ice sheet may well be evidence of warming, but then we have nothing to fear when it comes to sea level. None of the methods described here are not detailed enough to authorize such a declaration that: Antarctic ice really quickly lose land (do you really lose?). In any case I will add that this works like this: Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, Pritchard, 2008(9? - is variously dated), suggesting that the same is happening in the Arctic and Antarctica is the only way that: „... Amundsen Sea embayment of Antarctica, thinning exceeded 9.0 m yr-1 for some glaciers.”; an example of a typical "c. p.”. For me it is not "pure" science - even to discuss. For "cool" temperature of the discussion (in Poland - the heat wave) I propose: Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise, Pfeffer et al., 2008: “We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a "most likely" starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts THAT INCLUDE ICE FLOW DYNAMICS. [!!!]” Well, well ... For me this is very strange that the latter paper is not cited in: The SCAR Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (ACCE) report (Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment – An Update, 2010); and only: Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009): Global sea level linked to global temperature., and Velicogna (2009). However, the SCAR report is very, very interesting ... and should "give a thought" ... -
Jeff T at 23:46 PM on 16 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Ice leaving Antarctica and Greenland gets distributed to lower latitudes, where it increases the earth's moment of inertia. Consequently, the earth's rotation rate should decrease. Has anyone tried to use the earth's rotation rate to measure the loss of (non-floating) ice from polar regions? -
Ken Lambert at 23:39 PM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
KL #57 = OOps Post#50. -
Ken Lambert at 23:38 PM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
Peter Hogarth #56 So are we now seeing bottom warming in the Pacific from heat flux off Antarctica which happened in 1970? 1970 is the era when we were going to have the next ice age and CO2GHG warming had not been pressing. What are we to conclude from that Peter? For sure it does not explain the roughly 0.4 W/sq.m (average 65E20 Joules/year) of unaccounted heat from Dr Trenberth's budget shortfall over the 2004-08 period. Any experts on Argo analyses able to comment on my speculator in Post #49 ? -
Stu at 23:00 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Yeah it's not that they were actually missing, DarkSkywise, but they don't show up in the list of latest posts. I expect they will reappear at some point. -
DarkSkywise at 22:51 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
JM #11 & Lord S (you don't happen to be a honorary member of the House of Lords, do you?) ;) #12: I found 5 with Google from june 2 to june 11 (the "More results from"... link is my friend), including the one you mentioned, all in full working order. I assume John is implementing the "nofollow"-thing or something alike, so the WUWTF-crew will have a slightly harder time tracking them, and we will have everything back in no time. -
tobyjoyce at 22:46 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
CBDunkerson, It is a matter of opinion. I still think leaving all the flippancy and pique on the other side would establish much more effectively the difference between the protagonists. It is true that Watts' site (to take one example) has descended into la-la land, with references to cockroaches and the impending doom of a Communist takeover ... all because someone called out one of their idols!! -
CBDunkerson at 22:22 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Tobyjoyce, when you say, "Ok, he [Monckton] started it", that seems to imply that someone else has responded in kind. Which again, is not the case. Monckton said Abraham looked like an "overcooked prawn"... not vice versa. The 'Prawngate' name is meant to mock Monckton's diatribe against 'ad hominem' argumentation... in the same sentence where he expresses relief at being "spared his [Abraham's] face". Such hypocrisy SHOULD be mocked. Flippant? Yes, but frankly Monckton's ravings don't merit a serious response. If he can't behave like a grownup the best course is to laugh him off and move on. -
ConcernedCitizen at 22:07 PM on 16 July 2010Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Tom Dayton. Yes, the sun might produce the greater proportion of its energy in the visible, but it produces more IR then the earth. Go back and take a look at black body radiation, youo will see what I mean. -
ConcernedCitizen at 22:05 PM on 16 July 2010Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Stuart, no, you cannot use area. The energy is not absorbed in the intervening area between the sun and the earth, it is absorbed by the first surface it strikes. Using this raito you get an almost 1 to 1 equivalency of IR. -
lord_sidcup at 21:47 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
JMurphy. I think there were/are 6 altogether and you can still access them if you know the URL, but only the 1 you link to appears in the archive index. I'm sure there is a simple explanation and John will clarify when he is around. -
JMurphy at 21:00 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
lord_sidcup, I must admit that I cannot remember how many times Abraham has posted on this site (hopefully someone else will be able to reveal more) but I have found this : Abraham reply to Monckton -
lord_sidcup at 19:51 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Sorry, hyperlink fail: Passing Wind's comment -
lord_sidcup at 19:49 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
John, over at Deltoid occassional poster to this site 'Passing Wind' is claiming that: "At least 5 of Abraham's guest posts at skepticalsciece.com are no longer listed on the site. They have been redacted from the thread index and the thread archive." Can you clarify please? -
adelady at 19:37 PM on 16 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
Oh goody. "Hard-core string theory" , "new perspectives". And here was I thinking I had nothing to occupy myself with over the weekend. -
tobyjoyce at 19:12 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Re: Prawngate Ok, he started it. I would still have preferred something a bit less flippant. This will not stop me recording my support for John Abraham. -
Peter Hogarth at 18:59 PM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
Berényi Péter at 06:32 AM on 16 July, 2010 This really belongs on an Ocean thread, but there is some very recent work in this area from Kawano 2010. A basic conclusion is that there is an extra 5% of the total Pacific Ocean heat content below 3000m.
Decadal heat content change in each 100m layer of Pacific from measurements from repeat hydrographic surveys.
On the idea that overturning rates and hypothesised lack of vertical mixing to deep layers means it take centuries to change bottom water temperatures, there is a significant amount of measured evidence that suggests otherwise. This is worth a post at some point. It is fair to say vertical mixing processes are not fully understood, but numerous plausible mechanisms and some corroborating evidence have been put forward, and simulations are only now getting to the point of replicating some of the observations. Another very recent contribution is Masuda 2010, which shows it is possible to simulate a fast (40 years lag) mechanism that links surface air heat flux off Antarctica with bottom warming in the North Pacific.
-
Stu at 18:50 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
"Monckton's appearance is supposed to have something to do with him having Grave's Disease" I thought I'd read that Monckton's miracle AIDS cure also cured Grave's disease... not sure where I picked that up! -
tobyjoyce at 17:04 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Personally, I am not comfortable with the "Prawn" allusion. Monckton's appearance is supposed to have something to do with him having Grave's Disease. Making fun of an opponent's disability should be beyond the pale of acceptable discourse. Don Moutal should have gone with "Sitck to the facts, ma'am, stick to the facts".Response: The prawn allusion is not making fun of Monckton. On the contrary, this is a reference to Monckton likening Abraham to an overcooked prawn. I completely agree - making fun of a person's personal appearance is completely inappropriate in what should be a grown-up discourse. It's particularly ironic when you consider Monckton was accusing Abraham of making an ad hominem attack in the same sentence. -
villabolo at 16:39 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Good work. But is that Prawn in the illustration overcooked? Also, perhaps you can add some audio and animation to make it talk in a Mid-Western accent. ;-) -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 16:10 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Well done Dan - that makes it worth getting a facebook account! -
mothincarnate at 14:30 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Chris is amazing for his contradictions, isn't he? At least modern science doesn't work under Moncktonian logic! -
WAG at 14:26 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
nevermind - working nowResponse: Realised the links were broken a few seconds after I clicked the "Send to Mailing List" button, dangit! -
WAG at 14:26 PM on 16 July 2010Facebook page to support John Abraham
Links seem to be broken - they all take me to http://www.skepticalscience.com/\ -
Dan Moutal at 13:57 PM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Ok the Facebook group has been set up. http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/group.php?gid=135508543148017&v=info Sorry it took so long. -
indulis at 12:06 PM on 16 July 2010It's not bad
A bit more from the summary at the end of the paper "Protein content of food crops such as wheat and rice are predicted to contain to 15–20% less protein by the end of this century (Taub et al. 2008)." "Insect studies have shown that animals compensate for the lower protein content of plants grown at elevated CO2 by eating more (Lincoln et al. 1993). If this is also true of grazing mammals, then they would ingest more cyanogenic glycosides along with the rest of the plants in mixed pastures." "...it is possible that pastures rich in T. repens could become unsuitable for livestock if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase." -
indulis at 12:02 PM on 16 July 2010It's not bad
PS Trifolium repens is clover, sort of an important crop -
indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July 2010It's not bad
Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so a larger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein. "Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants." More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same time lowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reduced by lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, this makes plants more toxic. Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2" Overview of this research from Monash University Audio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow -
John Cook at 11:41 AM on 16 July 2010Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
Apparently even gravity theory has its contrarians. This brand new in the New York Times: A scientist takes on gravity -
scaddenp at 11:09 AM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
"here is another source of extra water in the oceans,which is the origin of most of the world's oceans-" Actually this is controversial. Getting our oceans (or even most of our oceans) by outgassing alone is a very tough proposition. "The overall balance is thought to be neutral, but it may not always be, especially during violent volcanic periods. " So Mt St Helens - 0.0032Gt. Himalayan glaciers 47Gt per year. I'm guessing you could make a case for around 3Gt/yr of volcanic outgassing but very difficult to make an estimate for water lost in sedimentary basins and subduction zones. I dont think this water source is material to the debate. -
Bern at 11:08 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Thanks for that, Sean A. I was wondering why that earlier quote seemed to be missing a bit... KR: thanks for that link re logical fallacies - it might be very useful to refer to in the future! -
snapple at 11:04 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Monckton's rejoinder cites a person named Taylor several times, but there is no last name. Is that the Peter Taylor who wrote "Chill"? Monbiot writes: [Taylor] has speculated that a Masonic conspiracy was tuning into his thoughts, and had sent a "kook, a ninja freak, some throwback from past lives" to kill him. He has also maintained that plutonium may "possess healing powers, borne of Plutonic dimension, a preparation for rebirth, an awakener to higher consciousness". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham Is that the Taylor Lord Monckton is citing? -
Sean A at 10:56 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Regarding the University's response posted above. Apparently there was an omission (apparently by Jo Nova), and according to Rabett Run, here's the proper reading: "Please be advised that neither we nor the University of St Thomas will communicate with you any further about your decision to sully the University of St. Thomas, Professor Abraham, and others rather than to focus on the scholarly differences between you and Professor Abraham." -
michael sweet at 10:40 AM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
On the other hand, the average ocean depth is only about 3700 m. According to: Kohl A, Stammer D: Decadal sea level changes in the 50-Year GECCO ocean synthesis. J Clim 2008, 21:1876-1890. the energy in the deep ocean has only penetrated to the 3000 meter level so far. When I eyeball your graph it seems to me that the average of 0-700m compared to the average of 700-3000 is not that far from what Trenberth stated in Chris's reference in #33. It is difficult to decide the best way to average the values. Why don't we just use Trenberth's numbers, since he has probably spent a lot of effort checking it? Personally, I value a number from a peer reviewed paper more than one that I see in an on-line blog. The authors put in a lot of time writing and reviewing the published calculation and it is not possible for bloggers to match that effort. If an error can be clearly shown that is one thing, but just offering a calculation or a graph and saying the paper is wrong is not convincing to me. If Trenberth is wrong, cite a paper that points out the correct answer. -
thingadonta at 10:31 AM on 16 July 2010Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
#6: there's one other source of extra water in the oceans worth mentioning: emptying of underground reservoirs. As I, somewhat unreliably, remember it it's a measurable contribution but not huge." There is another source of extra water in the oceans,which is the origin of most of the world's oceans- when magmas in the earths crust cool, they expel water. The Mid Ocean Rifts are several times the length of the earth's circumferance, and cooling, rising magmas expel water all along these locations. Water is also extracted from oceans in subduction zones by descending crust. The overall balance is thought to be neutral, but it may not always be, especially during violent volcanic periods. -
scaddenp at 09:42 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
"We still can't be sure there is a problem, but if there is one, the solution was ready thirty years ago." Well obviously I strongly disagree with you about perception of the problem and I can only assume that your reluctance to consider consilience is the basis of such belief. However, you find it strange that you gloss over problems associated with your "30 year old" solution, while nitpicking on renewables. "Sorry, I can never trust people who emphasize the problem but ignore the solution." Pardon? You wouldnt trust an astronomer who was telling you about an asteroid heading for earth because he/she couldnt propose a solution? I find this laughable. A climate scientist is the right person to be telling you what the physics of climate is and how current action will affect it. This is pretty much guaranteed to be the a different person to that to inform on energy alternatives and economic/political solution to such a problem. "Who were actually careful enough to eliminate the solution in advance from public discourse, R+D and business before they've started advertising the problem." Sorry, you are accusing climate scientists of working to ensure that discourse and R&D on nuclear was eliminated before springing AGW on the public? Really? -
kdkd at 09:17 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
Looking at the graph in #192 it looks like a bit over 19 billion dollars are wasted on crappy solutions, which is three times less than the fossil fuel subsidy, and a little less than double what "proper" renewables get in subsidy. -
kdkd at 09:15 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP #191 "I have a strong distaste against all non-solutions run on taxpayer's money, destroying the environment very visibly here and now, justified by projection of disaster a hundred years from now, perhaps, with some probability, based on speculation and measurements where signals get lost in noise." So let's see. On the tax payer's money furfy:
The "destroying the environment" claim is laughable, and has been corrected for you on a number of occasions.
Your second point is on the possiblity of disaster around the end of the 21st century.
Well, if we take your distinctly reductionist view, and selective reporting of the evidence - generally avoiding an integrated view of the topic (another one of my points that you've avoided addressing, again presumably because you can't), and a fair amount of mis-reporting apparently because you feel the need to confirm your preconceptions, then yes you might have a point. But the balance of the evidence, when viewed holistically suggests, very strongly, that if we haven't got on top of the fossil fuel problem by some time between 2020 and 2050, then it will be very hard to avert disaster that threatenes the infrastructure on which civilisation depends by 2100.
-
adelady at 09:04 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
@KR Thanks for that - straight into favourites. Easy, concise, absolutely terrific. -
Berényi Péter at 08:52 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
#189 scaddenp at 08:16 AM on 16 July, 2010 I can only hope your ardent opposition of climate science isn't springing from this strong distaste for windmills! :-) (I am joking) I have a strong distaste against all non-solutions run on taxpayer's money, destroying the environment very visibly here and now, justified by projection of disaster a hundred years from now, perhaps, with some probability, based on speculation and measurements where signals get lost in noise. We still can't be sure there is a problem, but if there is one, the solution was ready thirty years ago. Sorry, I can never trust people who emphasize the problem but ignore the solution. Who were actually careful enough to eliminate the solution in advance from public discourse, R+D and business before they've started advertising the problem. -
DarkSkywise at 08:43 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP #187: OK, so it looks a bit like pink noise. ;) But is there any proof that it continues at 9 dB/octave below 1Hz? And can you imagine the horrors at, say, 0.001 Hz if it did? We wouldn't have any buildings left standing! scaddenp #189: "I can only hope your ardent opposition of climate science isn't springing from this strong distaste for windmills!" Windmills are cool. (I'm Dutch.) :P In fact, there's even one quite close to my house, well within BP's 2 km safety range. (It's a Classic Turbineless Wooden Windmill, though, which probably explains why I'm not dead yet.) -
Hypnos at 08:25 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
Now I know why the cockroaches comment irked me so. There is an historic precedent. A radio openly calling for a "final war" to "exterminate the cockroaches Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines. The main Hutu broadcast from Kigali, Rwanda. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm -
scaddenp at 08:16 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP - so another reason why you dont like wind power. Got any more you can dredge up? I can only hope your ardent opposition of climate science isn't springing from this strong distaste for windmills! :-) (I am joking). More seriously though your objections dont seem to scale up against the problems associated with nuclear. For what's worth, I think we need both. Everything we do has problems associated with it but somehow we need a habitable planet with sufficient energy supply so you have to choose your poison. Moreover, I don't like the risks and costs associated with postponing action on climate change and windpower is more desirable than fast breeder nuclear for now. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 08:11 AM on 16 July 2010Monckton tries to censor John Abraham
robhon & dhogaza yes, Wiki is a good resource. Nice quote: "Several studies have suggested a high prevalence of neuropsychiatric disorders and mental symptoms in Graves' disease (and thyroid disease in general), which are similar to those in patients with organic brain disease" -
kdkd at 08:04 AM on 16 July 2010Hotties vs Frosties?
BP #187 "And yes, these low frequencies, even if inaudible, influence hearing of every able person." However, you have not managed to show much, if any clinical significance here, with the possible (but unclear) exception that some people with pre-existing conditions may have a rather poorly defined problem. And it does amuse me very much that you are avoiding addressing my comments on your very selective use of the precautionary principle.
Prev 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 Next
