Recent Comments

Prev  2318  2319  2320  2321  2322  2323  2324  2325  2326  2327  2328  2329  2330  2331  2332  2333  Next

Comments 116251 to 116300:

116251. caerbannog at 04:34 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        It should be pointed out that even if the CO2-effect were "saturated", additional CO2 would still warm the Earth. As CO2 concentrations increase, the altitude of the "top of the atmosphere" (TOA) increases. (The TOA is defined as roughly where most of the outgoing IR can escape directly into space instead of being absorbed/reradiated by CO2 above it). As the TOA altitude increases, its temperature decreases (thanks to the lapse-rate that deniers have been flogging recently). Since the amount of IR escaping into space from the TOA is a function of its temperature, the new, "higher altitude" TOA will have to warm up so that the energy leaving in the form of IR balances the incoming solar radiation (first low of thermo). Since we now have a greater distance from the TOA to the surface, the lapse rate means that the Earth's surface must warm as the TOA warms in order to restore the incoming/outgoing energy balance. This will happen whether or not the CO2-effect is "saturated" at lower altitudes. Deniers keep forgetting that "CO2-saturation" at the surface does not mean "CO2-saturation" at high altitudes. They also keep forgetting that CO2 doesn't just absorb IR; it reradiates it.
116252. citizenschallenge at 04:30 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        I looked at your Handbook this morning I liked it for the first production draft. I agreed with much of the constructive critique in the above posts so didn’t add anything. Being the kind of guy who's always trying to get inside the thinking of others, I found myself at the jonova website and have spent the last couple hours being frustrated and I will admit getting a bit overwhelmed. Especially, after down loading and looking over that masterpiece poster "Climategate: 30 years in the making" Quite the profession production... but with one thing in mind - to win their point of view. The spooky part is when "winning" becomes everything, where does that leave learning and adapting. When so much of the story must be ignored to prop up ones own point of view, where is the value in that?
116253. e at 04:04 AM on 2 July 2010
        What causes the tropospheric hot spot?
        Baa Humbug > The charts presented by numerous organizations do not show warming across all latitudes for ghg forcing. They distinctly show warming at 30N to 30S at 8-10km aloft (yes along with stratospheric cooling) The models show enhanced warming at tropical latitudes (the hot spot), but there is also a clear overall warming of the lower atmosphere, which is also clearly visible in the satellite data. I think what you are really looking for is a chart showing what modeled results would like if a non-GHG forcing was causing the warming and comparing it to the actual model predictions and the empirical data. This isn't what the IPCC charts - or the other charts you cited - are doing, though that's the way they are often misinterpreted. I don't know if such a chart exists, but the key difference would be a cooling stratosphere, which should be visible with GHG warming but not solar or other warming. Both GHG and non-GHG charts would show a hotspot, which is why the hotspot is not a signature of GHG warming. The observed cooling in the stratosphere is therefore very strong evidence for the current warming being GHG driven, and a strong falsification of other attributions. If this cooling didn't exist, it would be a very strong falsification of GHG warming. In contrast, if the hot spot really didn't exist, it would shift our understanding of the process of global warming, but not the cause (since the hotspot is predicted for all causes of warming.)
116254. Ned at 04:03 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        I should note that I learned about that from Nick Stokes at his blog.
116255. Ned at 04:02 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        John, you probably already know about this ... but if not, check out the booklet Climate sceptic arguments and their scientific background. It's similar to what you do here, and what the US EPA did earlier this year. What makes this one interesting, however, is that it's put together by a large corporation that sees climate change as a serious threat to its financial future.
116256. chris at 02:46 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        HumanityRules at 23:25 PM on 1 July, 2010 Argus at 01:15 AM on 2 July, 2010 It takes a certain bravery to discuss second-order consequences of global warming like changing precipitation patterns and extremes, and wildfire prevalence and risk, since these can be easy to "pooh-pooh". I think Mariana’s analysis is a justifiable reflection of the scientific data. On precipitation patterns and extremes It is pretty clear that the predictions on changing precipitation paterns in a warming world are being borne out by real world observations [*]. Argus, you asked “In the Amazonas it is already warmer than in most places, but is it dry?”. The answer is that in Northern Amazonia, global warming has been accompanied by drying (reduced precipitation). The latitude band from around the equator to around 30 oN has become drier as the Earth has warmed during the 20th century, much as predicted. This latitudinal band of reduced precipitation will widen as the Earth continues to warm, and so Amazonia is expected to dry progressively towards the South as the Earth continues to warm. The higher latitudes (especially above 50o N and below 10 o) have seen enhanced precipitation. Global warming and shifts in precipitation regimes is expected (and already observed) to lead to amplification of extreme precipitation events [**] (one could cite more papers on this, but Allen et al. 2008 is a decent starting point). [*] X. Zhang et al. (2007) Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends Nature 448, 461-465 abstract [**] RP Allen et al. (2008) Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes Science 321, 1481-1484 abstract On wildfire prevalence and risk Again real world observations support the expectation that global warming and shifts in precipitation patterns will (and are) lead(ing) to major changes in local hydrological cycles [***]. These effects lead to enhanced wildfire prevalence [****, *****] [***] e.g. TP Barnett et al (2008) Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the western United States Science 319, 1083-1086. abstract [****] AP Westerling et al (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313, 940-943. abstract [*****] YQ Liu et al. (2009) Trends in global wildfire potential in a changing climate Forest Ecol. Management 259, 685-697 paper
116257. Alexandre at 02:44 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        Captain Pithart #5 Well spotted. I'll try to find some time to do the Portuguese one, as well. I'm not very good at formatting the text to make it look like the original, though.
116258. Albatross at 02:33 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        I really do not see the point of debating in circles about the "CO2 is plant food" meme. CO2 is, of course, a micro nutrient required for photosynthesis, no argument there. Plants have been doing well at relatively low concentrations of CO2 for over 800 000 years now. Whether or not doubling CO2 is going to help crops and forests is all rather irrelevant when sea level is going to rise by over 1.5 m, and when heat waves and drought are going to continue increasing in intensity and frequency in agricultural certain regions. There are other, much more relevant limiting factors on plant growth and yield, the permanent wilting point being one of them. The portions of the USA are currently experiencing a heat wave, and despite CO2 being at their highest levels in almost a million years, the high CO2 does not seem to be helping the plants much. As noted by Mariana, those arguing that CO2 is plant food relying on the fact the CO2 plant food argument "rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion". IMO, that is the end of the debate right there as it pertains to AGW. JohnD are you maintaining that we should double or more than double CO2 in the hopes that the alleged gains in crop yield will offset the myriad of negative impacts associated with a global warming of at least +2C occurring in an incredibly short time? That seems a rather poor reason/motivation to go on to more than double CO2.
116259. Albatross at 01:57 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        Great effort John, and an excellent idea! Have you emailed a copy to Ms. Nova? Perhaps one could consider this version 1, and it can be updated as new information comes along? Maybe one could expand on this sentence a bit "So the hot spot is the result of surface warming and is not unique to the enhancd (?) greenhouse effect. For example, surface warming from increased solar output would also cause a hotspot." I say "enhanced", because some might argue "well why is there not a tropical hotpsot before CO2 increased?" Well, there probably has been there ever since we've had a greenhouse effect, it all depends what baseline you use to calculate the anomalies. Also, I agree with others that the quality of some of the figures is not the best, but I realise that you may have had to grab them from low-res PDFs. You say that "As there are no air conditioners or cars in space to..." Maybe I'm being picky, but while the satellites are in space, the measurements are being made in layers high above the ground in the earth's the atmosphere, and yes up there there is no impact from the UHI. Conceding up front that one simply cannot cover all the bases in such a short booklet, I am disappointed that there is no reference to the increase in OHC or SSTs (did I miss it?). That would, however, tie in nicely with the "reality of global" warming-- no UHI over the oceans. Other have noticed this too, but is there any chance of "fixing" the x-axis labels in the Alexander figure? That is just the kind of thing to get Ms. Nova hopping. You know, falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus. And one last observation, perhaps it is worth noting that some of these "skeptical arguments" were trotted out in the early 20th century, over 100 years ago in some cases. The theory of human-caused global warming is robust and held up to immense scrutiny and new observations from satellites etc. PS: Will people be able to view this on their Blackberries or iPhones? Yes, I know, I am technically challenged....
        Response: When I first mentioned "enhanced greenhouse effect" to Wendy, she thought enhanced made it sound like a good thing. Ditto for positive feedback. Nowadays, I called it the increased greenhouse effect.
        
        Re expanding on sentences, there is a lot more content that could go in there (and indeed was in there on the first draft). But as you say, you simply can't cover all bases in such a short booklet. And I don't think you should cover too much if you're trying to reach a broad audience. I would love to have got the Murphy ocean heat graph in there but well, there's only so much real estate. Basically, the website offers longer, more comprehensive versions of all these arguments. I'll eventually set up a page that makes all these longer webpages easily accessible from the one place.
        
        BTW, have fixed the x-axis labels in the Alexander figure and the low-rez graphics.
        
        Lastly, sorry, no plans for an iPhone version. But all this content is there in longer form in the iPhone app complete with all the goodies mentioned above.
116260. Alexandre at 01:55 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        JC #1 said: How does a layman deal with one side that says balloons have found a hot spot and the other side that says balloons have failed to find a hotspot? This is a very good question that most laypeoble should ask themselves, and persue it if they really want to have an informed opinions about this subject. My own attempts to overcome this problem were these: - Check the credibility of the claimer. Very subjective, and in principle nothing more than an authority argument. In practice, though, I think it's reasonable to attribute more credibility to NASA or NOAA or some Nature papers (specially if they concur with each other) than some loose claim in a blog. Or loose claim in many blogs. Understanding the difference between general media and peer reviewed papers helps, too. - Try to really understand the basics. The basic science involved is (to a large extent) accessible to, say, a good high school graduate. There's tons of information in the internet in research organizations and universities. Even some blogs (like this one) usually explain the basics including the relevant references (which is the important bit).
116261. Mythago at 01:44 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        Hello John, Have to agree with a poster who was concerned with the reproduction quality of the graphs. Also I noted on p11 'The Trend in Downward Infra-red Radiation' had an absence of data from the USA. Was this because the USA doesn't cause climate change? :-) Maybe your country is distancing themselves from responsibility for climate change? :-) Or is it another attempt by the USA to blame everyone else on the planet for the crisis? :-0) Yes, I am joking but some people will read the evidence, just like they do the sceptical arguments, (and read it exactly as I have suggested, albeit I was being tongue-in-cheek with my interpretations here) and believe the evidence as proof of blame should they finally lose the battle to say its all a con. The arguments can cut both ways like any good sword. Maybe also some explanation about the data source would suffice to dissuade the critics from being to literal. I also believe some reference to the original book would be justifiable. What is the point of a rebuttal without a target?
        Response: It's not my country, I'm Australian :-)
        
        Re the downward infrared radiation figure, here is the original pic from Wang 2009:
        
        
        
        The reason for the lack of observations in the USA is explained on page 9. The figure shows the trend over a 25 year period. Over this period, the US and Canada changed their way of observing clouds from a human visual assessment (someone looking out a window?) to instrument measured. So there's no single continuous data series lasting 25 years in the US or Canada.
116262. barry1487 at 01:44 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        I get a 404 error message when I click on the Climate Crock video link. Good post.
116263. chris at 01:41 AM on 2 July 2010
        Astronomical cycles
        Ken Lambert at 00:32 AM on 30 June, 2010 Ken Lambert at 00:33 AM on 2 July 2010 Ken, I suggest that you really need to find a way to address these issues with a little more scientific rigour. You were shown in some detail the manner in which the Topex and Jason data were merged here. Yet you continue to make unscientific and unsupported assertions about "offsets", and other unsubstantiated judgemental statements about the data. You are pushing your prejudices far too hard over this issue; kdkd is quite right to keep pointing this out. The bottom line is that the current sea level is pretty much smack on the level that one would have predicted 17 years ago by extrapolating forward in time with a rise somewhat above 3 mm.yr-1 as simple analysis of the data shows (dispassionate readers should also read Peter Hogarths nice description ). Your continued misunderstanding of the nature of the Earth response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations isn't helping you. Incrementally increased [CO2] doesn't necessarily equate to incrementally increased TOA radiative forcing, and neither of these (incrementally increasing [CO2]; incrementally increased forcing) necessarily result in incremental changes in the parameters (like sea level rise) of the Earth/climate response. That is so obvious as to be trivial. The TOA radiative forcing waxes and wanes as contributions from natural variability (solar; volcanic; clouds; albedo) modulates the greenhouse-induced forcing. In addition to these contributions, natural variability affects specific parameters of the Earth response. So sea level rise responds both to the variability in TOA forcing, as well to specific factors related to the temporal distribution of ocean heat that enhances and decreases the progression of sea level rise (e.g. during El Nino and La Nina events). Because the temporal progression of Earth responses to enhanced greenhouse gas is poorly predictable, both in its general trend and due to this natural variability, the effect of enhanced greenhouse forcing on the Earth system is normally assessed in relation to the surface equilibrium temperature response, once the climate system has re-equilibrated with the forcing. "CO2GHG theory" (as you call it!) has rather little to say about the exact progression of climate-related parameters (like sea level) other than that these will fluctuate around the trend on the progression towards equilibrium. It is a total fallacy (and a strawman argument) to think that one should observe continuously incremental changes in any parameter of the climate system, as the latter progresses to a new equilibrium state.
116264. bobp at 01:39 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        It is a red herring and has no bearing on how much enhanced co2 levels are warming the earth, but dismissing the fertilization effect out of hand seems to me mistaken when it is still a matter of scientific debate,see the article linked to by chris @41. I saw a lecture by david archer where he suggests fertilization could explain the missing sink (more co2 is emitted by mankind than absobed by atmosphere and ocean) http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html BTW this is my 1st post though I've enjoyed reading your site for about a year and found it informative and scientific but, I'm sorry to say this article seemed much more(in tone) like an article on a"skeptical" site,and I hope this is just a typo " A rise in CO2 levels is not the only consequence of climate change"
116265. Berényi Péter at 01:27 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        What the science says: Journal of Experimental Botany Vol. 60, No. 10, pp. 2859–2876, 2009 doi:10.1093/jxb/erp096 Advance Access publication 28 April, 2009 REVIEW PAPER Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE Andrew D. B. Leakey, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Carl J. Bernacchi, Alistair Rogers, Stephen P. Long and Donald R. Ort
        1. carbon uptake is enhanced by elevated [CO₂] despite acclimation of photosynthetic capacity
        2. photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency increases at elevated [CO₂]
        3. water use at both leaf and canopy scales declines at elevated [CO₂]
        4. dark respiration is significantly stimulated in soybean leaves grown under elevated [CO₂]
        5. stimulation of carbon uptake by elevated [CO₂] in C₄ plants is indirect and occurs only in situations of drought
        6. the [CO₂] ‘fertilization’ effect in FACE studies on crop plants is less than expected
        Plant response is complex. Water and nitrogen use efficiency increases in general, C₃ plants react better than C₄ plants (the latter being an expensive adaptation to low CO₂ levels), drought tolerance improves. Even crop yield increases pretty linearly up to about 500 [CO₂] ppm and rate of increase only starts to decline above this level. In other worlds, yield is more or less proportional to the logarithm of carbon dioxide concentration (the same way CO₂ forcing is said to be). SCIENCE VOL 312 30 JUNE 2006 Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO₂ Concentrations Stephen P. Long, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Andrew D. B. Leakey, Josef Nösberger, Donald R. Ort
116266. Argus at 01:15 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Thank you, HumanityRules (#47)! Those were two of the blunders in the post that I was about to comment on myself. The paragraph about rain also says: "With the global increase in temperature caused by the various factors affecting our climate's balance, increased evaporation means decreased soil moisture." So, if it is warmer, the soil is drier? In the Amazonas it is already warmer than in most places, but is it dry? The simple fact is that the earth has hot and dry places, hot and wet places, cold and dry places, and cold and wet places. Whether the ground is dry or humid depends on other factors than just the temperature. The paragraph about how more and denser forests and other vegetation would be a problem causing forest fires, is indeed preposterous. We know that on the shorelines and islands in and around the Mediterranean once were full of forests. When they cut down too many trees to build ships or make fire, the soil was washed down into the sea, and the last trees died. The soil is needed to keep the moisture in the ground, and together with the trees, they form the basis for more rain. Now we have dry macchia instead around most of the Mediterranean, which is really conducive to supporting forest fires. Would't it be better to have the forests back? No matter what grows in the soil, it is at least always better than barren ground.
116267. Ken Lambert at 00:33 AM on 2 July 2010
        Astronomical cycles
        kdkd #115 It seems that the 17 year record is a splicing together of a chain of 3 satelite records (TOPEX, Jason1, Jason2) with differing accuracies and precisions. This chain is only as good as its weakest link. If short links are involved (ie Jason 2) then they should probably be deleted from the composite to give a consistent year on year record. Confine your comments to these technical issues rather than judgements of truth or untruth.
116268. Marcus at 00:31 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Here is part of an abstract which highlights that an enriched CO2 will lead to problems in photosynthesis & plant health in many cases: "Young bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv Seafarer) grew faster in air enriched with CO2 (1200 microliters per liter) than in ambient CO2 (330 microliters per liter). However, by 7 days when increases in overall growth (dry weight, leaf area) were visible, there was a significant decline (about 25%) in the leaf mineral content (N, P, K, Ca, Mg) and a drop in the activity of two enzymes of carbon fixation, carbonic anhydrase and ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) carboxylase under high CO2." This does highlight that-even in the absence of the other detrimental impacts of CO2 enrichment-the significant increases achieved in *vegetative*-not SEED-biomass will most likely be increasingly short-lived as CO2 concentrations continue to rise, & will probably come at the price of overall plant health & nutritional value. This is something that the "CO2 is plant food" crowd never like to dwell on too much.
116269. Marcus at 00:18 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Wow, John, way to prove that you *didn't* read the results of that Horsham Trial too well. I read the results & understood them clearly-better than you did at any rate (apparently you can't even read a graph too well). I also paid close attention to the final comments that you also linked to. Looking at the graphs regarding GRAIN YIELD (not total biomass-that's completely different), we see in most varieties there is no significant increase in grain yield. In the remaining varieties, the increase in grain yield was significant but very small. By contrast, the decline in protein content-across the board-was significant, & not offset by the increase in grain yields in most cases. The experimental design included nothing simulating about hotter & drier conditions-they only compared rain-fed to irrigated systems, which is a far cry from simulating the conditions expected later this century if global warming gets worse. That you missed this PROVES you didn't bother to give this trial anything more than a casual glance, cherry-picking the bits you felt agreed with your viewpoint. The researchers admitted that, whilst protein levels in the grain decreased, the amount of nitrogen required was signficantly higher in the enriched CO2 conditions. Trust me, no farmer is going to choose to purchase even *more* expensive fertilizer to achieve little to no significant increase in grain yield. Other FACE trials from across the world show an equally disappointing increase in grain yields (5% to 8% maximum)-even in optimum conditions, & they have also noted a decrease in the *nutritional quality* of those seeds. That you haven't discovered that fact proves that you've clearly not looked too deeply into any FACE trials outside of the one in Horsham. Also, the great leaps forward in agricultural production have been as a result of increased use of pesticides, herbicides & fertilizers-& the move towards greater mechanization, not increases in CO2 in the atmosphere (which, need I remind you-yet again-is NOT the limiting factor in plant growth). It has, though, also made farming much more expensive-& marginal. Which is exactly why most farmers won't buy a significant increase in costs just to produce a very small increase in grain yield-at the cost of quality. At the end of the day, John D, you can keep repeating these falsehoods about the *wonders* of future CO2 increases, but repetition won't ever make it the truth! This tactic might work with all your denialist mates, but it doesn't cut the mustard around here. Now, go back & read the results of the FACE trial PROPERLY!
116270. boba10960 at 00:15 AM on 2 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        John Your Scientific Guide to the Skeptics Handbook is a terrific resource that will be of great value in setting the record straight. However, there is one point that is misleading if not erroneous. On p. 4 the guide states “In the past when the ocean warmed, this caused more CO2 to be released to the atmosphere.” This is true, but it implies that changing ocean temperature was the primary cause of past changes in CO2 observed in ice cores. This is not the case. Holding everything else constant, atmospheric CO2 will increase about 10 to 12 ppm for every degree C that the entire ocean (i.e., mainly the deep ocean) warms due to the temperature dependence of CO2 solubility in seawater. From the peak of the last ice age, about 20,000 years ago, to preindustrial times the deep ocean warmed approximately 2.5 to 3°C. Therefore, given the temperature dependence of CO2 release noted above, warming of the ocean can account for 25 to 36 ppm 1/3 to less than half of the 80 ppm rise in CO2 after the last ice age ended. However, all else was not held constant. The ocean also became less salty as the ice age ended. Melting of ice on land lowered the salt content of seawater by about 3%. The solubility of CO2 in seawater increases as the salt content decreases. The decrease in salinity of the ocean as the ice age ended lowered atmospheric CO2, offsetting about half the effect of rising temperature. Considering the combined effect of changing temperature and salinity, one can account for only a small (albeit significant) part of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the end of the last ice age. Other processes must have controlled most of the change in CO2 seen in ice cores. Although there is still no consensus among scientists about the relative importance of various processes that regulate atmospheric CO2 levels, the processes are known. Two recent papers provide nice summaries of these processes, one in Science last week and one in Nature this week. Denton et al. (The last glacial termination, Science, 25 June 2010) describe the sequence of events that cause an ice age to end, including processes that raise the CO2 content of the atmosphere. This paper provides evidence of why temperatures in Antarctica began to rise before CO2 levels rose detectably as the last ice age came to an end. Sigman et al. (The polar ocean and glacial cycles in atmospheric CO2 concentration, Nature, 1 July 2010) reviews the various ocean processes that are thought to affect atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These processes are most important in the ocean around Antarctica, and they are linked tightly to climate. This coupling accounts for the tight correlation between CO2 and temperature that is clearly evident in the Antarctic ice core records.
116271. JMurphy at 00:05 AM on 2 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        HumanityRules, perhaps you should read some IPCC : 3.3 Changes in Surface Climate: Precipitation, Drought and Surface Hydrology How is Precipitation Changing? See also, for the UK : Changing intensity of rainfall over Britain
116272. johnd at 23:46 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Marcus at 12:14 PM. information from Monckton? ROTFLMAO. The only things that I know about Monckton is what I have read from his many fans on this site. Given the attention paid to him they obviously see him as being very influential.
116273. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:41 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        The Polish Institute of Environmental studies (2006): "Previously it was thought that increased CO2 concentrations deteriorate the quality of agricultural products [eg protein cereal - gluten], but accurate, many studies have not been found. Detailed studies have shown that the plants quickly, because within a few weeks acclimated to elevated carbon dioxide. " "... Photosynthesis, especially the most common type of C3 plants increases significantly with increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). Simultaneously with the acceleration of photosynthesis, the optimum temperature shifts to higher temperatures. [...]"A particularly positive effect on the "fertilization" of CO2 [700 - 1500 ppmv] to react: "... plants growing in a greenhouse [which] at elevated carbon dioxide concentrations, it’s have higher yields on average by 33% ..." In addition, there is: - Reduction of stomatal conductance and transpiration increase efficiency of water use, - Reduce the amount of protein enzymes involved in carbon reduction cycle, which increases the efficiency of nutrients, - - Accelerate growth and increase the number of leaves and flowers, - Better regeneration of plants breeding - by tissue culture [in vitro], - In some cases reducing costs of light made [greenhouse] ... " CO2 is warming - the area of deserts and areas affected by natural disasters is to be increased, but ... "The prevailing view that the overall scale of expected changes involving global warming will bring positive effects in the rural economy. Indeed, if the sum of effective temperatures will increase it and increase yields of most crops - not only thermophilic. " Previous natural hunger, " ... were correlated with solar activity minima. The probability of randomness of this compound was calculated on an extremely small, ie the order of one ten-thousandth (King 1975). " Therefore, "... Always one of the best determinants of the old warm climates have been and are low prices for cereals and especially wheat. (quoted from above). " “Assessing the importance of expected climate change y its impact on world agriculture, we can conclude that growing anthropogenic global warming and, in particular, the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere can HAVE A FAVORABLE EFFECT on crop productivity in many regions of the earth. However, we should not forget that these estimates for DIFFERENT REGIONS COULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.” (The Close Relationship between Climate and the Global Food Problem, Budyko, 1998). "Old growth forests may actually still be accumulating carbon, in defiance of Odum's equilibrium hypothesis, explains Philippe Ciais, Deputy Director of LSCE, and co-author of the study. More than 30% of the planet's total forested area is unmanaged primary forest, half of which is located in temperate regions in the northern hemisphere. The database established for this study reveals that these ancient forests fix between 0.8 and 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon each year, and that 15% of the total forest area that has until now been totally IGNORED IN CARBON BALANCES is in fact responsible for at least 10% of all carbon sinking activity." (ScienceDaily, Sep. 14, 2008).
116274. johnd at 23:38 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Marcus at 12:31 PM, most of the answers to your questions were in the Horsham FACE trial link I provided originally, but it required understanding the content, not merely the reading of it. 1) does an enriched CO2 environment generate long-term, increased plant growth in the absence of ideal conditions? .......... The only long term trial under such conditions has been over the last 100 years. Given the CO2 levels were stable for 1000's of years, a sudden 100 years of a constantly increasing CO2 levels indicates that at this stage, further increases in CO2 still accelerate the response with little indication of acclimation or any other adverse effects. Indeed some experts are crediting some of the huge leap in agriculture production over that time, in part to increased CO2 levels. ------------- 2) does an enriched CO2 environment generate a significant increase in the quantity of *edible* biomass (usually seeds or fruit)? .......... As indicated in the Horsham FACE trials, grain yields increased, significantly. The long established horticultural practice of CO2 enrichment in commercial greenhouse operations also support significant increases in edible biomass, why else would it have been done for so long? -------------------- 3) does an enriched CO2 environment generate a significant increase in the nitrogen content of the edible biomass? ........ Don't get too hung up on this point. Grain protein levels and yield are often the inverse of each other. Some of the highest grain protein levels are found during the driest years when grain yields are down. Whilst the grain protein level was down slightly in the FACE trials, that was offset by a significant increase in grain yield which most importantly means that the amount of protein produced per hectare increased, and that is the most relevant factor in needing to produce enough food to feed the worlds population. ---------------- 4) does an enriched CO2 environment lead to a decrease in demand for other limiting factors (like fertilizer & water)? ....... This is a really silly question. If plants are to grow bigger and better, for whatever reason, they require more nutrients, that is one of the most basic truths. If you want anything to increase growth, it requires extra inputs irrespective of what stimulates the extra growth. Do kids grow more if you feed them less? It appears however that water is utilised more efficiently when CO2 is the stimulating agent. --------- 5) does an enriched CO2 environment have any other positive or negative impacts on cropping *in the real world*? ...... See (1) above. No-till farming and stubble retention has meant that it is now possible to produce viable crops in more marginal conditions. Increase plant efficiency in the utilisation of moisture is a further positive.
116275. JMurphy at 23:36 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        This is an interesting read from the Journal of Experimental Botany (2009), mainly going on about the use of models (ooerr) but also giving a good round-up of current knowledge : Crops and climate change: progress, trends, and challenges in simulating impacts and informing adaptation
116276. HumanityRules at 23:25 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        "Another effect of global climate change is erratic precipitation patterns" "balanced rainfall drastically reduced" Taking the first quote what do we have now, or what did we have 100 years ago? Non-erratic rainfall? Consistent rainfall? It's a blatantly obvious rainfall will be erratic in the future. It's always been erratic that's the nature of weather. There is no optimum, climate is chaotic whether it's under the influence of man-made or natural forces. You seem to fall into the trap that nature is in someway harmonious except when interferred with by man. These statements seem to wander away from science and dangerously close to the Gaia theory. Or an equally poor idea that man-made change is bad, presupposing that natural change is fine. "For one, the increased density of forest vegetation could increase the risk of wildfires, which have reared their ugly heads in California all too often in the past few years, wreaking devastating damage" PURE ALARMISM!! Suddenly dense forests are bad. Maybe we should chop them all down? In fact the whole thing wreaks of emotionalism rather than science, sorry.
116277. tobyjoyce at 23:22 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Think I found the Climate Crock video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI&feature=player_embedded
116278. VoxRat at 23:18 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        @ #44 Hey that is a compelling argument! Now that I think about it, my sister used to have a mosquito repellent machine in her mosquito infested backyard. It worked by pumping out a lot of CO2, which confused the heck out of the little buggers trying to chemotax to their next blood meal. Coming soon to a climate skeptic site near you: huge increases in CO2 will be a good thing, because it will cut down on mosquito bites and West Nile disease and malaria! (Or at least mitigate the increase in the geographical spread of those things due to increasing temperatures.)
116279. Berényi Péter at 22:34 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Looks like CO₂ Generators are standard equipment indeed in commercial greenhouses. I don't know if it is good for plants or not, but there is a market for the gadget anyway.
116280. Lassesson at 22:23 PM on 1 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        John, Thank you for providing us with this material. I will definitely hand it out to my denying friends. I am just curious if you (or Alexander et al) didn't get the years wrong in the figures for Human Fingerprint #3, Nights warming faster than days. It seems to be a bit too many 1950's.
        Response: You can check out the full paper of Alexander et al 2006 (refreshingly, the full paper is freely available online). I pulled the graphs from Figure 2 on page 7.
        
        UPDATE: okay, I see what you mean, thanks for pointing out the glitch with the years in the Alexander x-axis. Have fixed it.
116281. chris at 22:18 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Mac at 21:51 PM on 1 July, 2010 Mac that is a truly dismal, scientifically illiterate, and rather nasty site.... Do you really think that misrepresentation and ad hominem argumentation combined with poorly constructed sarcasm is a useful way of addressing scientific issues? BTW, I don't see where the "lost" "irony" applies to Mariana's article and comment. Can you please clarify
116282. George Brooke at 22:05 PM on 1 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        Hi John, Would you mind clarifying (or choosing) the terms you've released your Scientific Guide under (http://creativecommons.org/choose/ has a nice permissions picker if you want to use a CC licence). Thanks
116283. Captain Pithart at 21:51 PM on 1 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        are you planning on doing translations? nova has her book translated into the following languages: Spanish ("El Manual del Escéptico") Japanese ("スケプティックハンドブック") Danish ("Håndbog for skeptikere") Balkans Translation (Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia) Portuguese ("O Manual dos Céticos")[5]: Fake Climate Turkish ("Şüphecilerin El Kitabı") Finnish ("Ilmastoskeptikon käsikirja") Ilmastofoorumi (kasikirja@ilmastifoorumi.fi) Norwegian ("Skeptikerens håndbok") Swedish ("Handbok För Klimattänkare") French ("Manuel du Sceptique") German ("Das Skeptiker-Handbuch") i'm not sure that makes sense; as her book has a very low level of entry, and i guess that most copies are hawked online, i don't think that many non-english speakers will stumble about your fine book. however, if you think translations would make sense, i could do the German one.
        Response: Just like the translations of the skeptic arguments (see flags at top of page), translations are very welcome. Anyone interested in translating the scientific guide, please contact me. Captain Pithart, I'll email you directly to organize details.
116284. SNRatio at 21:45 PM on 1 July 2010
        What causes the tropospheric hot spot?
        " Is it conceivable that the lower troposphere is warming at about the same rate?" Should of course be: Is it conceivable that the lower troposphere and the surface is warming at about the same rate?
116285. SNRatio at 21:40 PM on 1 July 2010
        What causes the tropospheric hot spot?
        Baa Humbug, I think the discussion of models and model predictions can be very misleading, as there is a very strong tendency on one side to stick to the modeling assumptions and think that the measurements are wrong. The IPCC is open to the possibility that their modeling is wrong, but they don't really believe it can be. On the other side, there are lots of flawed conclusions as to what really implies what. The basic phenomena here are: - Is the stratospere cooling or, at best, at constant temperature? Yes, it is. And this cooling is to be considered separately from anything that could occur elsewhere. Stratospheric cooling is cooling regardless of what might happen in the troposphere. - Is the troposphere, as a whole, warming? Yes, it is. This, too, is to be seen independently from what might happen further up or down. - Could this divergence be explained by the sun? No, not by any plausible model anyone has been able to produce. So far then, we have an observation of a GHG signature. Yes or no? - Is it conceivable that the lower troposphere is warming at about the same rate? Yes, it is. And in fact, that is what we seem to observe, with both the RSS and UAH temperature series. In fact, it is only during El Ninos we have, regularly, seen something else, with more warming of the troposphere. - Does this parallel warming contradict any laws of physics? Not necessarily, as there are several transport and conversion phenomena that could interact to produce the results we can observe. Whenever we have transport phenomena coupled with combinations of positive and negative feedbacks, as we have here, the results can become rather unpredictable, maybe even seemingly "non-determinstic".
116286. David Grocott at 21:37 PM on 1 July 2010
        What causes the tropospheric hot spot?
        Hi Baa Humbug, No worries, I don't doubt your integrity. I wouldn't disagree with the thrust of your second and third *s, but with regards to the first one, all the charts presented do show warming across all latitudes as a result of GHG forcing. A 0°C change would be shown as white on my charts and cream on yours. As you can see this is not the case. The charts do model more warming at 30N to 30S at 8-10km aloft, but that doesn't mean they don't also anticipate the troposphere as a whole to be warming.
116287. VoxRat at 20:57 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        The link to the Climate Crock of the Week video doesn't work (for me, anyway). I'm guessing this might be what was intended: http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=greenfyre.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvFGU6qvkmTI&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fgreenfyre.wordpress.com%2Fdenier-vs-skeptic%2Fdenier-myths-debunked%2Fclimate-denial-crock-of-the-week%2F%23dont ... but perhaps there's a shorter way to link to it.
116288. chris at 20:51 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        A relevant paper published in today's Nature [*]. This reiterates that any [CO2] effect requires enhanced N (nitrogen) nutrient as is well known, but the combined effects of [CO2]/N are likely to be counterproductive with respect to plant growth in natural ecosystems due to CO2/N-induced shifts in plant species. So natural ecosystems may respond poorly to enhanced [CO2] due to water and nutrient limitation and species shifts. In other words the terrestrial ecosystem is likely increasingly to falter as a sink to "mop up" large amounts of enhanced anthropogenic [CO2]. Managed agricultural production will cope with enhanced [CO2] but is likely to become more expensive to support due to nutrient and water limitations. [*] J.A. Langley & J. P. Megonigal (2010) Ecosystem response to elevated CO2 levels limited by nitrogen-induced plant species shift Nature 466, 96–99
116289. Baa Humbug at 20:35 PM on 1 July 2010
        What causes the tropospheric hot spot?
        Hi David I'm sorry for the late reply. Firstly I wish to state that at no time have I commented to mislead people. If I have, it is inadvertant. Secondly I have 2 apologies to make. First, I have been using the term "hot spot" to mean a warming of the tropospohere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Maybe posting during the wee hours hasn't helped. I apologise for the confusion this has created. But with due respect, I have gone thru your previous comments and didn't find where you made this distinction until your last comment at #63 My second apology is to e who posted the RSS images at #57 In his/her comments he/she does clearly state the distinction. Both are my misunderstandings therefore my fault. Hope I didn't frustrate you too much. I'm not going to trouble you further until I resolve the following issues.. * The statement "Stratospheric cooling is the cooling of the stratosphere while the troposphere warms across all latitudes. This prediction is unique to warming from GHG's." made by e at#57. The charts presented by numerous organizations do not show warming across all latitudes for ghg forcing. They distinctly show warming at 30N to 30S at 8-10km aloft (yes along with stratospheric cooling) * The papers cited (Sherwood, Heimberger Titchner etc) go some ways to reconcile the radiosonde data with satellites, but by no means do they show the 2-3 times warming at the "hot spot" (accompanied by stratospheric cooling) * The ensemble of 6 charts we've been discussing. yes they are simulations from 1890 to 1999. This is the period man has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This is the period that has warmed (due to ghg's according to the IPCC). Chart C clearly shows a "hot spot" along with a cooling stratosphere. Therefore, our observations should show that. I don't believe they do. So again, like you, I look forward to future papers on this subject. Thnk you for your efforts.
116290. Paul D at 20:33 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        Re John Russel @ 35... Interesting about the greenhouses. So if we give them CO2 at night and stick a load of lights on, we could stress them out. A bit like human problems caused by changes in daylight, sleep and work patterns.
116291. John Russell at 20:07 PM on 1 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        An excellent little booklet, John; I will circulate it to all my sceptical friends. Just a couple of points. Having titled it "A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'", it then doesn't mention what the 'Skeptics Handbook' is and therefore will confuse some readers who might come across it (one would hope) out of context. It would be good at the start to put a thankyou to Jo Nova for inspiring this handbook, plus a very brief explanation as to why the booklet was necessary (my tongue is in my cheek slightly -- but I'm serious). The other point is that some of the graphs are very low resolution. Would it not be possible to redraw them? The same applies to the UWA logo on the back cover.
        Response: Good advice. Have mentioned the Handbook on the inside cover as well as my authorship, which I forgot to put in the first edition. Have also created the PDF with higher rez graphics. It pushes the filesize up from 330Kb to 800Kb which is still pretty small.
        
        For the record, when Wendy created the initial PDF, it was the proper resolution. It was only when I got involved in the process that the file went fuzzy.
116292. David Grocott at 19:38 PM on 1 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        JC, Nova's actual assertion is:

        The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale "hot-spot" warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There's not even a hint. Something else caused the warming

        The problem for Nova is that the tropospheric hot spot is not a unique 'greenhouse signature'. What is a unique greenhouse signature is the fact the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling. Note there is a difference between the troposphere at large, and the tropospheric hot spot. The existence of the actual unique signature is supported by strong observational data. Nova just gets very confused and conflates the two points. There is a good argument to say the 'hot-spot' has been found - see here and here - but it's absence would not imply that humans are not causing warming, it would imply that there is no warming - something which would be at odds with all of the surface and satellite data. With this in mind I find John's arguments fairly persuasive. The hot-spot is very much not as much of an issue as Nova would like to have you believe.
116293. Doug Bostrom at 19:18 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        By the way, John, I wasted a few minutes looking at Wittwer's "paper." It cites no references, none. The tract is riddled with political content, takes a wide excursion to discuss climate change, criticizes even Republican responses to the issue and claims that scientists "disagree on the likely effects of additional carbon dioxide on global temperature," carefully couched language indeed, technically true but conveying a powerful impression. It does contain the earliest occurrence of the term "alarmist" I've seen, dating back to 1992 as the item does. Is that where you're getting all this business about the life-giving properties of C02?
116294. Doug Bostrom at 19:05 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        doug_bostrom at 12:17 PM, doug you should take the opportunity to check back from where you shop and see where it leads to. No, John, I want you to provide us with evidence for your assertion that grocery store shelves are replete with fruits and vegetables grown with enriched C02. Where's the data? You know your way around this stuff. What's the market penetration, in percentages?
116295. werafa at 18:52 PM on 1 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        John, You have done a good job, and please pass on our thanks to Wendy (behind every great man....) My big issue with climate change is our failure to present a compelling case to people not caught up in the debate. To often we do not balance precision with impact. so, once again thanks, and job well done
116296. werafa at 18:41 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        A brief explanation of the CO2 fertiliser effect from a Forester (I harvest my crop in 30 years so I have to know this stuff - and thanks for the comments because one never knows it all!) Plants combine carbon, water and sunlight to produce carbohydrate. That, along with a few minerals and trace elements is what is in your breakfast bowl, in your lunch box and will be on your dinner plate tonight. The CO2 fertiliser effect occurs where an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration leads to an increase in plant production like adding dynamic lifter or super phosphate does. This is a good thing, right? Yes, it is a good thing, but it doesn't work well in reality. Plant production is ultimately limited by the "most limiting factor". This might be phosphorus, so adding super phosphate will give a boost to growth. If there is not enough nitrogen however, the plant can not use the added phosphorus, and adding the fertiliser is a waste of money. This is why farmers spend money analysing their soils. And what if water is the most limiting factor? You can fertilise all you want and get nothing in return. The majority of Australia's soils are nutrient poor, and receive limited rainfall, so guess what? Increased CO2 levels do have an important effect however, and there are indications that it is already happening. Plants open their stomata to breathe in CO2, and loose water in the process (stomata are the microscopic pores on leaves, and are a bit like a cross between sweat glands and lungs). If there is more CO2 in the air, plants don't have to open their stomata so much to get it, and loose less water. This means that they don't need as much water, which is lucky because over the last few years in Australia they mostly didn't get it. So what does this mean for climate change? Many places are expected to receive less rainfall over time, and plants need water to grow. An enhanced CO2 fertiliser effect seems likely to increase the water use efficiency and drought tolerance of many plants. Large scale Free to Air Carbon Enrichment experiments seem to indicate that original laboratory results are often not repeated in real world environments, and that what you see is what you get. But who is complaining. I think I will rather appreciate a bit extra drought tolerance in the future.
116297. johnd at 18:40 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        doug_bostrom at 12:17 PM, doug you should take the opportunity to check back from where you shop and see where it leads to. This paper may provide some historical background for you. It was written by SYLVAN H. WITTWER, professor emeritus of horticulture at Michigan State University. He directed the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station for 20 years, and chaired the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council. He is the author of the world's leading textbook on greenhouse vegetables, at least in 1992 when this paper was written. An extract from the paper to whet your appetite:- "American commercial greenhouses have used carbon dioxide fertilization for tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers, flower and foliage plants, and bedding plants for at least 30 years. The benefits of this enrichment were first discovered by nurserymen in Germany 100 years ago, and the practice is widely used in Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Australia, and Japan, as well as the United States and Canada." Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants by Sylvan H. Wittwer What I think is forgotten by many who are adept at Google searches and cutting and pasting, is that not everything is available on the internet. A lot of what I have read over the years comes from industry specific publications and describes what is actually happening in the real world. It may be years, perhaps never, that it makes it to the stage of being published in a peer reviewed journal and becoming available on the internet. But that doesn't stop the information being spread through the industry and being put into practice by those who are more interested by the practical results than any endorsement by academic experts.
116298. John Russell at 18:30 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        I did a bit of research into the way glasshouse growers use CO2 to boost plant growth. To simplify; as one would expect, CO2 levels in greenhouses fluctuate throughout the day as the plants 'breathe' both oxygen and CO2. It appears that higher concentrations of CO2 do help growth at certain times of the day when, in glasshouses, CO2 levels would sink below levels that would otherwise pertain outside in the open air. QUOTE: "The best time to add CO2 is from dawn to dusk. CO2 ranges from 400 to 500 ppm during the night due to plant respiration. Right after sunrise a level will drop to about 300 ppm. After three to four hours of early sun light it will drop to 100 to 250 ppm at which time growth will stop. If you add CO2 during the winter months when ventilators are closed and CO2 concentrations are low, you will get increased yield and bloom which normally happens during the spring and summer." The above quote is from Advance Greenhouses Perhaps the issue is not as straightforward as some people think. Modern plants have evolved to grow at their 'ideal' rates in the CO2 concentrations that have pertained in the atmosphere over the last 100K+ years. Increased CO2 concentrations can only affect growth in a useful way when plants are in artificial conditions controlled by humans and 'quantity not quality' is the human goal. Could wild plants subjected to increased CO2 levels become susceptible to other problems? For instance could too-rapid growth make them structurally weak and unable to support themselves properly -- so that they're more likely to blow over in a gale? Something like this might not matter in a greenhouse but it would matter in the wild. There's also the point -- hinted at in the quote -- that higher levels of CO2 could lead to inappropriate growth at times when the plant should be resting. This is OK for a greenhouse plant whose destiny is to be eaten -- not so good for a plant that needs to survive and reproduce in the wild. Yet another damaging effect of climate change.
116299. Argus at 18:25 PM on 1 July 2010
        CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
        A comment to #6 villabolo and #7 Bern: Animals and humans use oxygen primarily to get energy to keep us going through the day. Plants use CO2 to keep building biomass. They get energy from sunlight. Therefore it is more correct to call CO2 "food" for plants than "air" for plants. CO2 does not give them energy.
116300. John Chapman at 18:21 PM on 1 July 2010
        A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
        Jo Nova still asserts that weather balloons have failed to find the hotspot and she produces a temperature map to support her case. How does a layman deal with one side that says balloons have found a hot spot and the other side that says balloons have failed to find a hotspot? BTW .. the guide is well produced and it went into the hands of most attendees to the WUWT tour. Lets hope they all read it.

Prev  2318  2319  2320  2321  2322  2323  2324  2325  2326  2327  2328  2329  2330  2331  2332  2333  Next