Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 Next
Comments 123451 to 123500:
-
Karl_from_Wylie at 02:56 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #77 Deech56 The first question to be addressed is sloppy research. And the amazement scientest exhibit when they are asked about their adherence to the standards they set themselves. -
Argus at 02:51 AM on 28 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Thank you very much for acknowledging that there are other forcings than CO2, and that climate changes similar to what we are experiencing now, have occurred before. It seems to me that 99% of what is presented here is focussed on CO2 only, as if there were no other explanation to anything at all happening on this planet. Also, thanks for the links! I am continually reading up on more facts presentations and connected debates within this great site (and some others). I am slowly learning, and by now I know a lot more than the average person in the street, but I also recognize how little I know compared to those who have studied this field seriously for years. -
Berényi Péter at 02:48 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#72 Jeff Freymueller at 17:00 PM on 27 February, 2010 "Anyone can download the original data and reanalyze it" Jeff, I am trying to reflect on this statement, but John keeps deleting my posts. In a _political_ thread, full of off-topic comments. I really do not know why he does it. Anyway, I give it another try following Doug Bostrom's advice in #50, this thread and repost under "Are surface temperature records reliable?" as #57. http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=57&&a=110#9491 -
Deech56 at 02:35 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, you might want to check here. -
Berényi Péter at 02:34 AM on 28 February 2010Temp record is unreliable
Re: #72 Jeff Freymueller at 17:00 PM on 27 February, 2010 (in: Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming) http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=147#9477 "Anyone can download the original data and reanalyze it" Jeff, I am trying to do that, but the only source I know of is GHCN-Monthly Version 2 at the NCDC site: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php Do you know a better source? If so, a pointer is welcome. For this particular dataset is a complete mess. It is dominated by USHCN, poorly documented, metadata are insufficient, the adjustment procedure is arbitrary, coverage AFTER 1990 is deteriorating rapidly. Look into it and you'll see. In a post deleted by John I have provided some details. Suffice to say the NCDC adjustment algorithm has at least four outstanding break points at 1905, 1920, 1990 & 2006. On average for the 1920-1990 period they have applied a 0.36°C/century warming adjustment to the entire dataset. It's essentially the same for sites flagged "rural" and the rest (urban & suburban), no statistically significant difference in adjustment slopes (based on counterfactual assumption of no urbanization in this period perhaps). The dataset does not meet any reasonable open source standard. Still, NCDC at its site says it was "employed" in IPCC AR4 20th century temperature reconstruction. http://ber.parawag.net/images/GHCN_adjustments.jpg Looks like it is high time for a transparent open source community project to recollect worldwide temperature histories along with site assessments and ample metadata. -
Berényi Péter at 02:12 AM on 28 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
You can have a look at sea level trends here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml Unfortunately they neither compute acceleration term nor have data in text files. -
pmheideman at 02:10 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Inhofe's report is frankly pathetic. The discussion of "hide the trick" is laughable, with Jones being accused of 'data manipulation' in his graph, indicating that Inhofe's staffers don't even know what data are. The whole premise that someone nefariously hides something by including the real temp data is absurd. It doesn't even mention the NAS report on the Hockey Stick graph, which is a pretty striking act of intellectual dishonesty in a governmental publication. And it cites Jones' "no statistically significant warming" comment repeatedly as if it were some kind of shocking admission, without mentioning that GISS, etc do show warming that passes the significance test. On a skeptic scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being EM Smith of WUWT and 10 being Lindzen, I'd give it a 2.5. -
Berényi Péter at 01:59 AM on 28 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#67 kwinters79 at 07:49 AM on 27 February, 2010 "If I start my NY guage data projection fit from 1950 or 1960 (vs. 1856) there's a significantly more rapid acceleration component. I'll gladly post the data, if anyones interested" Post it please. However, this acceleration thing is not so simple. In PSMSL we have two time series for each station, monthly & annual ones. For the New York tide gauge they are: http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.monthly.plots/960121.gif http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.plots/960121.gif The corresponding text files: http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.monthly.data/960121.rlrdata http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.annual.data/960121.rlrdata Some measurement points are flagged "XX" at end of line, meaning database collectors found them suspicious. I have left them out in this analysis. I have calculated acceleration term for relative sea level change at NY gauge for a number of time spans. Here it is. Monthly/Annual: 1900-1920: +0.7263 mm/yr^2 +0.7899 mm/yr^2 1900-1930: -0.1316 mm/yr^2 -0.1158 mm/yr^2 1900-1940: +0.1065 mm/yr^2 +0.1160 mm/yr^2 1900-1950: +0.0976 mm/yr^2 +0.1011 mm/yr^2 1900-1960: +0.0675 mm/yr^2 +0.0701 mm/yr^2 1900-1970: +0.0320 mm/yr^2 +0.0338 mm/yr^2 1900-1980: +0.0097 mm/yr^2 +0.0083 mm/yr^2 1900-1990: -0.0098 mm/yr^2 -0.0095 mm/yr^2 1900-2000: -0.1244 mm/yr^2 +0.0005 mm/yr^2 1900-2008: -0.1123 mm/yr^2 -0.0010 mm/yr^2 1910-2008: -0.1390 mm/yr^2 -0.0093 mm/yr^2 1920-2008: -0.1650 mm/yr^2 -0.0164 mm/yr^2 1930-2008: -0.1807 mm/yr^2 -0.0187 mm/yr^2 1940-2008: -0.1392 mm/yr^2 +0.0117 mm/yr^2 1950-2008: -0.0339 mm/yr^2 +0.0283 mm/yr^2 1960-2008: +0.3291 mm/yr^2 +0.0679 mm/yr^2 1970-2008: +1.5011 mm/yr^2 +0.1345 mm/yr^2 1980-2008: +5.0428 mm/yr^2 -0.1557 mm/yr^2 1990-2008: +7.4565 mm/yr^2 -0.6288 mm/yr^2 The large discrepancies toward the end are due to measurement problems after 1990. Annual series misses data for years 1992, 1994 & 2001, 1997 flagged suspicious. Metadata does not have explanation. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/docu.psmsl/960121.docu Monthly dataset misses three months for 1992, two for 1994, one for 1997 and four in 2001. Data after 1990 are unusable. I don't know why it is so, one would fancy some technical improvement, not deterioration for recent times. Also, according to docu "Data 1922-1926 interpolated". Looks like only period 1927-1991 is reasonably intact. 1927-1991: -0.0908 mm/yr^2 -0.0901 mm/yr^2 Someone should visit (or call) NY tide gauge station, ask them and report findings. BTW, the station must be The Battery, downtown Manhattan (ID: 8518750), even if PSMSL ducu lacks station ID (!). http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?stn=8518750%20The%20Battery,%20NY&type=Tide%20Data -
Karl_from_Wylie at 01:58 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #74 wingding It looks like NOAA might have its own issues with removing climate measuring stations that report cooler than expected values. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf -
wingding at 00:57 AM on 28 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Charlie A 68: The focus on the missing CRU data is a big political con. It has no scientific importance and is merely advanced to try to discredit the very robust and independently validated recent warming trend. We could pretend CRU never existed and our understanding of warming in recent decades would not change. That's how robust the result is and how little any individual record - like HadCRUT matters. Five other temperature records - GISTEMP, NOAA, JPA, RSS and UAH, all show the same as what HadCRUT shows. And other analyses are also showing the same picture: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/ -
Riccardo at 23:51 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter, i can just quote doug_bostrom, you should post in a different thread. -
Riccardo at 23:45 PM on 27 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Argus, it should come as no surprise that climate has changed before. Indeed, one has to look at how climate works, i.e. that there are several possible forcings other than CO2. In particular, in the first half of last century there has been a reduced volcanic activity (grey line) concomitant to an increase of total solar irradiance (top panel). The result is an increase in temperature till about 1950, overall and in the Arctic as well. -
Berényi Péter at 23:09 PM on 27 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
#68 Douglas McClean at 19:24 PM on 27 February, 2010 "the linear rise component you observed in these data is in fact attributable to warming" The linear component can have any sign, is highly variable over locations, not just at sites close to former ice sheets. Shape of Earth is changing all the time, has nothing to do with temperature, usually a slow process (having minuscule acceleration on century time scale) except at plate boundaries. Mediterranean seas like Black sea can also have weird behavior for a number of reasons. All in all the quadratic component is much more reliable than the linear one, depends less on the particular choice of tide gauge set considered. It also dominates over longer time scales. Just to make things clear, the line fit I used was (a/2)*x^2+b*x+c. -
Turboblocke at 22:15 PM on 27 February 2010It's cosmic rays
Thanks Riccardo. BTW he's not a friend, just another blog scientist. -
Argus at 20:50 PM on 27 February 2010Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
Well Riccardo, who was warming it so much then, when human CO2 emissions were only a fraction (less than 1/10) of what it is now? The cows and their methane outlets? What explanation do you have in your 'data'? -
Douglas McClean at 19:24 PM on 27 February 2010Misinterpreting a retraction of rising sea level predictions
@53, Berenyi Peter wrote: "Of course, there is a steady linear rise as well due to geophysical processes (like glacial rebound), but it can hardly be more than 10 cm/century." Surely post-glacial rebound, the process by which landmasses rise after removal of the weight of glaciers which had rested upon them and caused them to sink into the mantle, causes sea levels (as measured with respect to those land masses, and ceteris paribus) to *fall* and not to rise. It is my understanding that the linear rise component you observed in these data is in fact attributable to warming (some of it an extremely delayed response to the warming experienced as we emerged from the last ice age) and not to "geophysical processes" (as distinguished from warming). -
tobyjoyce at 19:09 PM on 27 February 2010Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
In para 6 of the foregoing: "So I am sure where this came from" should read "So I am not sure where this came from". -
Jeff Freymueller at 17:00 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The argument about CRU and the data is silly. CRU is not an archive center. They got the data from the original sources, who have the responsibility to archive the data. Nobody has to get the exact data set from CRU, and almost all of the data is freely available anyway. If someone takes the freely available data and gets a significantly different result than CRU, then they should submit their result and methods for publication -- and more power to them if they are right! As for my own nearly 20 year old dissertation, all of the results not published on paper are on unreadable 9-track tapes (probably long since degraded). To even read the electronic files of my dissertation itself, I would need to buy a translator program or unscramble the out-or order text. But so what? Anyone can download the original data and reanalyze it. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:26 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel at 15:19 PM on 27 February, 2010 Funny! Yeah, that IOP thing is blazing around the internets today, carried far and wide because it's that rare instance where rejection is seemingly endorsed with the imprimatur of a legitimate organization. It's been dutifully deposited wherever climate science is discussed. I'm betting it'll blow up dramatically when the IOP membership notices they've been spoken for. It's a familiar narrative. -
gallopingcamel at 15:19 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
doug_bostrom (@29), It appears that I have caused you some distress which was not my intention. Please accept my apologies. Now I will try to explain my position without using the f***d word. Yesterday the UK Institute of Physics submitted a memorandum to the British parliament that did not once use the f***d word. Even so their meaning is pretty clear: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/.../uc3902.htm I wonder why the US press is ignoring the Climategate eruptions that are taking place in the UK? Ooops! I hope you do not find the C*********e word offensive too. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:12 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Charlie A at 14:13 PM on 27 February, 2010 Based on this analysis, you should be careful of your odds: New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. The study, carried out by ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) with input from the Met Office, performs a new calculation of global temperature rise. This independent analysis is based on information from a wide range of sources. It uses all available surface temperature measurements, together with data from sources such as satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys.The new analysis estimates the warming to be higher than that shown from HadCRUT’s more limited direct observations. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period. This provides strong evidence that recent temperature change is at least as large as estimated by HadCRUT. New evidence confirms land warming record
-
Charlie A at 14:13 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
@ Doug_bostrom #67 I'm merely saying that the CRU results most likely cannot be replicated. As for starting with the raw station data, it appears that the Met Office may indeed do this. I don't expect any tremendous changes in the temperature series, but then again we are looking at trends of 0.1 or 0.2 C per decade. Were I a betting man, I would give 2 to 1 odds that the overall temperature trend of the reconstructed series is lower than that of the CRU. OTOH, I would be surprised if the difference in trends were more than 0.05 C/decade. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:51 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Sounds as though you believe the whole CRU process is quite useless. That being the case, there's no point in following their method. Instead you should obtain the raw station data and do your own analysis. Maybe you'll come up with some new insights. -
Charlie A at 13:33 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
doug_bostrom at 13:15 PM on 27 February, 2010 "The raw data underlying CRU's analysis is available, the processing methods are known, if there's serious doubt about wagering large amounts of cash on predictions made on the basis of this research there's no actual obstacle to verifying the results." I guess you haven't read much of the harry.txt file and seen how arbitrary, opaque and non-replicable were the decisions on how series were chosen and combined. And how many known errors are in the current database. -
Charlie A at 13:18 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The missing data at CRU is an old story. I tried to replicate some time history for islands in the Pacific and requested the original station data used for the HADCRUT3 time series for those locations. Their response was "we don't have it anymore". UEA put up this notice back in August 2009: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ The key section says "Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." -
Doug Bostrom at 13:15 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter at 12:22 PM on 27 February, 2010 "Only wimps use tape backup..." :-) Karl_from_Wylie at 12:55 PM on 27 February, 2010 As Marcus pointed out, back in the 80's I don't think anybody knew what a bone of contention this would become. The raw data underlying CRU's analysis is available, the processing methods are known, if there's serious doubt about wagering large amounts of cash on predictions made on the basis of this research there's no actual obstacle to verifying the results. Compared to the money everybody's worried about the cost of doing so is infinitesimal. Moralizing about Phil Jones and CRU's lack of candidacy for being patron saints of data archiving is sort of beside the point. I'd be the last to criticize, just based on my own experience. In my real life I'm sometimes dependent on restorations done from backups being done on an hourly snapshot basis with modern equipment. When we're called to rely on those there's invariably something missing. Nobody is perfect, sadly enough. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 12:55 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #53 Ogemaniac "...I know if someone asked for copies of everything in my decade-old dissertation, I would surely not be able to come up with everything." Not a problem until you ask someone else to spend their money based upon your analysis. If you want someone to spend their money as a result of your study, you'd better have ALL your ducks in a row. -
Ned at 12:53 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The first page of this thread was getting pretty ugly. Let's all take a deep breath and remember that this site is focused on science. Accusations of fraud and casting aspersions on people's motives are off-topic here. -
Ned at 12:48 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter writes: Come on. Latest blogposts, not latest comments. Not the same. Well, then look at the top left: "RSS Comments" -
Berényi Péter at 12:25 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#55 doug_bostrom at 12:11 PM on 27 February, 2010 "Don't despair" Come on. Latest blogposts, not latest comments. Not the same. -
Berényi Péter at 12:22 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#54 doug_bostrom at 12:10 PM on 27 February, 2010 "When a grant is zeroed out, entropy sets in regardless of the best efforts at preservation. If nobody is tasked specifically with archiving data it'll inexorably rot" Not necessarily. "Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it" (Linus Torvalds) -
Marcus at 12:18 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
I would add a further point Doug. I doubt that any of the researchers collecting original climate data 30-50 years ago could have predicted the politically motivated attacks that the current crop of researchers would be subjected to. Had they predicted it, I've no doubt they'd have made a far greater effort to keep every last paper-clip & staple. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:15 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Correction: checked the geometry and it's a little shy of 400 boxes of research product. -
Marcus at 12:13 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Wow Karl @49 if that's the very *best* you guys can come up with, then that's just beyond WEAK! -
Doug Bostrom at 12:11 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter at 12:06 PM on 27 February, 2010 Don't despair; check to the left: "Latest Posts"! -
Doug Bostrom at 12:10 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie at 11:59 AM on 27 February, 2010 Karl, I have a very good friend who is an active researcher and who has performed many experiments over the years. She has attempted like any good scientist to retain all data used in the course of her investigations, "just in case." Presently there are something like 500 boxes of moldering floppy disks, papers, hard disks etc. sitting in the downstairs of her house. Theoretically nearly all her work product is there, but I can almost guarantee that if she had to account for all of it there would be a shortfall of some percentage. Guess what? When a grant expires, is consumed, there's no annuity provided to fund record keeping in perpetuity. When a grant is zeroed out, entropy sets in regardless of the best efforts at preservation. If nobody is tasked specifically with archiving data it'll inexorably rot. There's nothing controversial or mystifying about this phenomenon, these artifacts are subject to the same vagaries as anything else in the physical world. CRU has managed to hang on to something like 95% of their records going back decades. That's actually a very good performance and of course is indicative of an active attempt to combat rot. Some folks would like us to imagine there's incompetence or worse at play in this matter, but in fact the CRU resides in the same physical world as the rest of us and cannot reasonably be expected to do otherwise. -
Ogemaniac at 12:08 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
49.Karl_from_Wylie at 11:59 AM on 27 February, 2010 . #43 Tom Dayton Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0gh3ygxsK Is this really a surprise? I know if someone asked for copies of everything in my decade-old dissertation, I would surely not be able to come up with everything. It's not because I have something to hide, but rather, I am a human with limited amounts of time and limited amounts of effort I can put into organization. -
Berényi Péter at 12:06 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Yes, it would be better to post it in that thread. Unfortunately this site lacks "last updated" feature, no one can see comments to old posts. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 12:04 PM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #46 Ricardo If you lose track of $10 then don't be surprised if I question your ability to handle other money. And don't be surprised if I am skeptical of your investment advice. -
Doug Bostrom at 11:59 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Berényi Péter at 11:58 AM on 27 February, 2010 Perhaps would be better for "Temp record is unreliable" thread? -
Karl_from_Wylie at 11:59 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
. #43 Tom Dayton Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0gh3ygxsK -
Berényi Péter at 11:58 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
I repost, not the details. Ask. If John deletes facts again, I quit. Average NCDC adjustment for the 1850-2010 period for GHCN rural and non-rural sites. Difference of v2.mean_adj & v2.mean (raw data). Suggests some bizarre algorithm. http://ber.parawag.net/images/GHCN_adjustments.jpg ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/ -
Charlie A at 11:44 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
The title of the headpost is "Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming", but I don't see any discussion or argument to support your claim that he is distracting rather than focusing the discussions in useful ways. It would help your readers if you had included links so that they could easily look to see what Senator Inhofe actually said. Here's a link to his EPW committee page, with further links to subject of interest: http://www.epw.senate.gov/inhofe Here's the minority report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63 Here's a 2 page listing of recent errors and controversies surround IPCC, with links for further info: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=9cc0e46e-56be-4728-9099-92dbda199bfc Here's a short 1 page note on the relationship between IPCC AR4 and the EPA finding that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8cbf48d4-22b3-4151-bc9a-651cadd62c4c My earlier post appears to have been accidentally deleted. -
Riccardo at 11:28 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, "The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved," Then what? If you loose $10 you've lost all your money? And don't you know there exists the GHCN? A weak try mate, find a better one. -
Berényi Péter at 11:28 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
John, have you deleted a post again? Why? -
Marcus at 11:11 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Sorry, my mistake. It is 14C, not 13C-I have a tendency to get those two mixed up-thanks for clearing that up Stuart. Still doesn't invalidate my point-namely that we *know* the most recent CO2 emissions are from fossil fuels due to the change in carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere. Even if we couldn't identify the CO2 in this fashion, it would still leave the following question-if there was so much additional CO2 being held in natural sinks, why did CO2 levels in the troposphere never exceed 290ppm over the past 7.5 million years, in *spite* of significant changes in temperature during the interglacial periods? -
Tom Dayton at 11:02 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Karl_from_Wylie, for the real story on the Phil Jones missing data version published by the Guardian, please see "Part 5" of the new RealClimate post "The Guardian Disappoints." -
Karl_from_Wylie at 10:58 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#39 Riccardo, Phil Jones now admits that data has now gone missing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data "...The dog ate my homework" -
wingding at 10:55 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
gallopingcamel #27: The CRU email analysis you cite is shockingly biased and incompetent as documented here: http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/example-of-pseudogate.html http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-skeptics-distorted-cru-emails-in.html and http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-skeptics-distorted-cru-emails-in_20.html -
Berényi Péter at 09:54 AM on 27 February 2010Senator Inhofe's attempt to distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
#12 Marcus at 23:10 PM on 26 February, 2010 "the new CO2 is from a source where there has been significant time for the 13C to decay to 12C" Marcus, 13C is a stable isotope, it does not decay. Plant uptake is different, but it's another matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-13
Prev 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 Next
