Recent Comments

Prev  2591  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  Next

Comments 129901 to 129950:

129901. David Horton at 16:47 PM on 5 April 2009
        Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
        Phillippe, no I wasn't confusing them. But I was wondering if a break up of ice shelves may be contributing to greater sea ice. Or are icebergs irrelevant to sea ice extent?
129902. Philippe Chantreau at 10:31 AM on 5 April 2009
        Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
        David Horton, do not confuse ice shelves and sea ice. Sea ice is frozen sea water, whereas ice shelves are pieces of land based glaciers floating on the sea. Ice shelves are governed by land based ice dynamics and their interactions with the marine environment. However, it is true that they have been going pretty fast. The Wilkins is about ready to break loose as well.
129903. David Horton at 09:42 AM on 5 April 2009
        Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
        Also the latest NOAA report finds that in the Antarctica the "Wordie Ice Shelf, which had been disintegrating since the 1960s, is gone and the northern part of the Larsen Ice Shelf no longer exists." I guess this is an obvious counterpoint to the "more sea ice" finding, but I also wonder if loss/fragmentation of ice shelfs is contributing to the sea ice. That is, more sea ice is confirmation of the melting on and near land?
129904. walter crain at 00:11 AM on 5 April 2009
        Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
        sorry this is not about antarctic ice. john, i recently came across two new "skeptic arguements" you may want to add to your list: 1)"crustal movement" (by brian valentine of the heartland institute) 2)"england temperature record doesn't show much warming" tamino has addressed the england temp record claim at his website. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/central-england-temperature/ i thought the more creative one was valentine's "crustal movement". he and bob ryan had an blog discussion over at capital weather and here's what brian said: "The earthquake that led to the terrible Tsunami in the Indian Ocean was a collosal event; an event of that magnitude must have been preceded by crustal shifts that resulted in the immense stresses released by the earthquake, and as I stated I have resolved a slight nutation that has a resultant North, meaning the northern hemisphere was slighly biased toward the Sun during a period of some years" the true effects of "crustal movement" on earth's orbit can be found here: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-009
129905. Gord at 00:03 AM on 5 April 2009
        It's the sun
        Re: #244 Here is a link to Trenberth's paper: Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf The Sun is the ONLY energy source in Trenberth's Energy Budget diagram. The Earth and the Earth's atmosphere are NOT energy sources. Look at Fig.7 The earth’s annual global mean energy budget ----------------------- The Law of Conservation of Energy states: "ENERGY CAN NEVER BE CREATED OR DESTROYED". Fig.7 of the Energy Budget shows: - Incoming Solar Energy, at the top of the atmosphere, to be 342 w/m^2. - Surface Radiation of the Earth is 390 w/m^2!!! EVEN IF ALL THE INCOMING 342 WATTS/M^2 OF SOLAR ENERGY REACHED THE EARTH'S SURFACE (which it does not)...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO RADIATE 390 WATTS/M^2!! Since the SUN is the ONLY energy source....Trenberth has the Earth's Surface CREATING ENERGY! This is ABSOLUTE PROOF that Trenberth's Energy Budget VIOLATES THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!
129906. David Horton at 22:29 PM on 4 April 2009
        Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
        Good to have you back John. Obviously a complex topic. Similar to the increase in snow fall on Antarctica as a result of the seas warming. In both cases the outcome is counter-intuitive to what would be "common sense" and therefore gets picked up by denialists as evidence of failure to warm, when in fact it is the opposite. The contrast to the Arctic (where estimates of time to an ice free summer have just been revised downward again) is stark. But of course the Arctic and Antarctic are similar only in being polar and icy. In most other ways they are quite different, and their responses to a warming planet are also consequently different.
129907. black2deep at 02:32 AM on 4 April 2009
        It's the sun
        Okay, let me ask this question. If we suddenly decrease the amount of CO2 by lets say, 10%. How much will that drop the over all global temperature? How much moisture is in the atmosphere at this moment? Where will that moisture go when the temperature suddenly drops? Has anyone considered the results of a sudden drop in over all CO2 content in the atmosphere. Tom .R
129908. black2deep at 01:50 AM on 4 April 2009
        It's the sun
        I have read some toung in cheek remarks about volcanic activity in the oceans. Even a bit of back handed humor. The ability to simply negate the data or simply make the statment that "I don't have the time to investagate the possibilities" seems a bit negitive. Can anyone be so positive of a condition that they simply ignore other possibilities? Solar radation is an extream factor in earth heating or cooling. Any changes in the suns activity will cause weather and temperatures change. The argument that solar flair activity has not effected the earth temperature has yet to be proven. Techtonic activity according to USGS is more active in this centry than any other centery. Yet this inofrmation is being ignored. (Before anyone jumps on the train lets see which way it goes.) Volcanic activity causes cooling, not heating of the atmosphere. Dust particles tend to block the heat and cool the temperagure of the earth. However, underwater volcanic activity does two things. One, it heats the waters through magma flow welling up through the cracks within the crust, and saturates the water with CO2, two it changes the prevailing currents of the oceans. Recent events has cuased the currents to change in one part of the world, when a 100 foot tall 1000 mile wall welled up Near Indonisa. Thus, chanigng the water currents forever in that area. Before we jump on one wagon, shoulden't we be examining every aspect of this situation, rather than simply pointing to one suspect and yelling. "He's the guilty party!" Not only is it non scientific but smacks of politics, more than science. Tom R.
129909. Gord at 22:56 PM on 3 April 2009
        It's the sun
        Re: #246 and #247 The Sun is the ONLY energy source in Fig.7 of Kiehl & Trenberth's Energy Budget Diagrams. In-coming Solar energy and out-going IR energy is balanced at the top of the atmosphere. However, below the upper atmosphere Conservation of Energy is violated. The Law of Conservation of Energy always applies....including the Earth's surface. The Surface of the Earth absorbes 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy (and is the ONLY energy source). The Atmosphere and the Earth are NOT energy sources. The Earth's surface is shown to be radiating 390 w/m^2. The Back Radiation from the atmosphere (shown to be absorbed by the Earth's surface) is 324 w/m^2. Both these quantities (390 w/m^2) and (324 w/m^2) exceed the ONLY energy source (the Sun) which provides only 168 w/m^2. The Law of Conservation of Energy states: "Energy can never be created or destroyed". There is, obviously, energy "creation" in this situation....an impossible outcome. ------------------ MattJ's post with reference to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states: "The application of the 2nd Law is not that straightforward. This becomes more clear if we use a better source for the wording of the Law, better than Wikipedia or the Hyperphysics site. I use The Pauli Lectures on Physics Vol 3, which is on Thermodynamics, and has: "There does not exist a device which, working in a cycle, permits heat to be transferred from a reservoir at one temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature without compensating changes (that is, unless mechanical work is done or energy is added by some other means)". I fail to see the difference between MattJ's preference for the 2nd Law definition as compared to the Hyperphysics link, which is: "Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object." In fact, MattJ found it necessary to explain what "compensating changes" meant....which is clearly stated in the Hyperphysics definition. Both defintions say the same thing....as one would expect. ------------------------- MattJ seems to have missed the point of the Sun being the ONLY energy source. He said... "But we have both of these compensating changes: mechanical work is done on the atmosphere itself as it is heated by radiation, and energy is added from the sun." What MattJ is trying to say is that there is "mechanical work" done to move heat energy from a Colder atmosphere to a Warmer Earth. This would have to be the equivalent of a Refrigerator in the sky....which does not exist. In fact, actual measurements conducted at the Physics Dept.of Brigham Young University, Utah clearly shows this: ------------------------ Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives "The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees. These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky. For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward. Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object. The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C. So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere." http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht This link shows that heating cannot occur from the atmosphere. In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY! All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere! It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C! "If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water)achieved ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F." This confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics....heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects. And, there is no Refigerator in the sky to force energy flow from Cold to Warm. ------------------------------ PS: Matt, I don't see any relevance of your posts to my Post #244.
129910. MattJ at 17:49 PM on 3 April 2009
        It's the sun
        Post #246 was really directed as a response to #243, not #244. Yet it is indirectly applicable to #244 also. But this post is directed to another subtopic of #243, the alleged violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The application of the 2nd Law is not that straightforward. This becomes more clear if we use a better source for the wording of the Law, better than Wikipedia or the Hyperphysics site. I use The Pauli Lectures on Physics Vol 3, which is on Thermodynamics, and has: "There does not exist a device which, working in a cycle, permits heat to be transferred from a reservoir at one temperature to a reservoir at a higher temperature without compensating changes (that is, unless mechanical work is done or energy is added by some other means)". But we have both of these compensating changes: mechanical work is done on the atmosphere itself as it is heated by radiation, and energy is added from the sun. Besides: the radiation budget diagrams like Kiehl and Trenberth's Fig. 7 do not SHOW a cycle. So in order to show an alleged violation, one would have to show how to use what IS shown in Fig. 7 to construct a cyclic process transferring heat to a hotter reservoir without compensating changes. This is actually not a simple construction, which is why people do not usually resort to it. Instead, they analyze such situations by using, for example, the Gibbs variational method, which automatically guarantees compliance to both First and Second Laws.
129911. MattJ at 17:34 PM on 3 April 2009
        It's the sun
        Re: #244: The diagram in Fig. 7 of Kiehl & Trenberth's is quite misleading. Numbers that look like they are total fluxes in one direction or the other are not. To get the right equation to express Conservation of Energy at the Earth's surface, one must refer to the previous page, which has: SW = LW + LH + SH where: LW = Surface Radiation - Back Radiation Absorbed by Surface = 396-24=66, just as Trenberth said. SW is the net (downward) shortwave flux at the surface, which is called Incoming Solar Radiation Absorbed by Surface which is 168 (we can ignore reflected) LH is latent heat, SH is 'sensible heat' (not in Fig. 7). So this gives 168=66+78+24, which is correct for expressing Conservation of Energy at the surface.
129912. Philippe Chantreau at 17:18 PM on 3 April 2009
        Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
        Actually, I did not link it but gave the reference and abstract in post #253 of the thread. It appears to be the very same paper but published in the Journal of Climate instead of UW. I would have linked the pdf from UW if I had known it was there. Author(s): Zhang JL Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 20 Issue: 11 Pages: 2515-2529 Published: JUN 1 2007 Times Cited: 1 References: 34 Abstract: Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an increase of 0.20 x 10(12) m(3) yr(-1) (1.0% yr(-1)) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084 x 10(12) m(2) yr(-1) (0.6% yr(-1)) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027 x 10(12) m(2) yr(-1) (0.2% yr(-1)) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979-2004 and the extended period 1948-2004
129913. Patrick 027 at 14:44 PM on 3 April 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        "A new dynamical mechanism for major 1 climate shifts" Should be "A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts"
129914. Patrick 027 at 14:40 PM on 3 April 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        ... because they compare the behavior they found in observations to that they find in climate models and find similar behavior. Those climate models produce global warming in response to increased CO2, and do not incorporate submarine volcanism or any particular patterns in volcanism so far as I know, and most definitely do not include tides from other planets. Furthermore, Tsonis et al do not show in this paper why this pattern occurs, nor do they show that changes besides the longer term warming are entirely associated with this particular pattern (some changes in ENSO and other such modes of variability could be due to AGW and other externally-forced changes more directly; some could be a result of the mechanisms of this pattern, but this pattern could be affected by externally-forced climate changes in some way.). They did not mention the AMO, which I think has a similar time scale and has been said to vary between partially masking and adding to anthropogenic global warming. The only statement that raises a conflict with some of the current body of knowledge is that the lull in global warming between 1940 and 1970 may be less due to variations in anthropogenic aerosol cooling than thought and more due to internal variability than thought. I'm not sure how significant an adjustment to current understanding would truly occur if this paper and subsequent work lead to a new understanding of the matter. I did once read, some years ago, that a person had identified a pattern in the paleoclimatic record, which was suggested to fit the pattern in the historical record of changes in the 20th century in global average surface temperature, with warming up to about 1940, cooling to about 1970, and warming after about 1970 - but with a notable difference, that the warming has been greater and the cooling less (in fact there really was not an extended period of cooling in the global average) than would be expected from the paleoclimatic pattern alone - this would be consistent with externally-forced global warming superimposed on some natural 'cycle'. Whether the paleoclimatic pattern is the same phenomenon covered by this paper, or due to AMO, or if the phenomenon in this paper is organized by the AMO - well, that I don't know; who does?
129915. Patrick 027 at 12:25 PM on 3 April 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        About this: "Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts" See Tsonis et al: "A new dynamical mechanism for major 1 climate shifts" http://www.uwm.edu/~kravtsov/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf What they have found, based on their interpretation, is that there are times when some of the leading modes of variability vary together (become synchonized), and when the strength of that synchronization then increases, this destroys the synchronization and causes shifts in temperature and variability patterns (ENSO). However, they did not attribute longer-term average warming to this process. Nor did they attribute these changes in variability to volcanism or tectonics - not that this alone implies it cannot be so, but ... it seems to me that it is more likely their findings are incompatible with your hypothesis then with most of what I've been saying.... (to be continued?)...
129916. Philippe Chantreau at 03:56 AM on 3 April 2009
        Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
        This appears to be the same Zhang paper I linked in the Arctic Sea Ice thread, thanks for picking up on it John, interesting stuff.
        Response: It is interesting stuff, I was very surprised to find the Southern Ocean has been warming so much - I thought it must be cooling if sea ice was increasing. But I must confess I missed your link (will have another look). I've been sitting on this paper for over 6 months - I started writing this post last September!
129917. PT_Goodman at 16:30 PM on 2 April 2009
        The link between hurricanes and global warming
        Perhaps this is a bit OT, but I'm wondering if, from the above graph and text, any qualitative inferences can be made about the _apparent_ recent increase in extreme weather events around the world. In an Amazon Discussion (of all places), I suggested that one could not prove that the flooding in North Dakota was due to GW or due to global cooling, if that's your predisposition. My uncertainty: is weather (worldwide) is now truly more dynamic, or does weather simply appear to be so, due to better/more reporting of extreme weather events. Any comments or links that may help provide some insight are welcome.
129918. dgranrath at 10:52 AM on 2 April 2009
        Models are unreliable
        I am trying to remain objective as I learn more about the Physics of climate change. This has not been easy amid all the opinion and hyperbole surrounding the subject. However, this web site has impressed me with the intelligence shown by the author and the commentators. I have some questions related to the GCM controversy. Perhaps someone can point out primary references where they can be answered. 1. What is the "predictive" variability between climate models? 2. Do they all have the same free model parameters (i.e. fudge factors)? 3. If so, are these parameters set to the same values to accurately fit historical data? It would raise my "skeptical" level if, in fact, the GCMs contain significant differences in their predictability and technical structure.
129919. Ian Forrester at 08:10 AM on 2 April 2009
        Why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
        John, what affect could the water from the melting ice cap have on the size of the ice pack? The water surrounding the Antarctic should be less salty and thus freeze at a higher temperature. Could this be partially responsible?
        Response: Funny you should mention that - when I first started researching this topic, that was the first thought I had. Well, not the impact of fresh meltwater but of calving land ice. None of the papers I read find calving land ice or meltwater have an impact on sea ice levels. Nevertheless, I ran the idea by Eric Rignot who has done a lot of research into Antarctic land ice loss. His response:

        Glacier ice and sea ice do not have much in common. My paper is about the loss of land ice; it has nothing to do with sea ice. Vice versa. The stability of the sea ice cover in the antarctic does not mean anything in terms of land ice. Almost feels like comparing water from the ocean and water from lakes.

        Sorry I don't have any harder numbers for you on that (if anyone else cares to chase down hard figures, I'd be appreciative :-)
129920. Quietman at 09:37 AM on 1 April 2009
        Climate's changed before
        ps I am retired on a healthy pension, I think I know about the real world, but you still have much to learn. Read my comments and links in the volcanos thread.
129921. Quietman at 09:35 AM on 1 April 2009
        Climate's changed before
        Well Dave, I have been around long enough to have experienced warm winters before. Growing up on Long Island we had snowball fights wearing no more than jeans and t-shirts. You can fool the kids but you can't fool us old timers, sorry.
129922. Quietman at 09:27 AM on 1 April 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        ps The links in Posts 5 and 6 (especially the first link in 5. Post 13 has the Tectonic Thermostat link and the links in 83 support me in that they can be rapid. Then "Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts" link at 107. and 178 "Magma chockfull of silica is viscous (think warm, gooey taffy) and traps lots of gases." refers to Alaska's eruptions, evidence of the increase in subduction there.
129923. Quietman at 06:32 AM on 1 April 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        Pat Re: "statistical study of the raw data for yourself" Yes but in MY field, not in climatology. ie. I understand correletions, nobody understands climate yet. Re: "You did post a source about ENSO being connected to volcanos via volcanic aerosol climate forcing - noting that not all El Ninos are caused that way." No, not "via volcanic aerosol climate forcing", an article of SIGNALING the beginning of a cycle, ie. the volcano erupts and is used as a SYMPTOM. Re: "You've never actually posted any source that links any of that to planetary alignments. You did post a source about a planet that would be heated sufficiently by tidal deformation to be kept habitable whereas it would not otherwise be so. Tidal heating of the Earth is a fraction of geothermal heat release, most of which is slow and steady, related to conduction through the crust, and in total is puny in comparison to just the recent changes in climate radiative forcings." If you refer to the "Thermostat article", you make the assumption of an earth with a constant rate. That constant rate was disproved by the findings in Nepal and Tibet of just how old the Himalyas are (they are MUCH more recent than thought). It was also proven false by further studies in both the Rockies and the Andes. They are much younger than thought. In my hypothesis I make a couple of assumptions (as in any hypothesis). I assume first that Rhodes Fairbridge was correct in the "Solar Jerk" and hypothesize that this same jerk is applicable to the Earth. This explains why plate tectonics occur in "fits and spurts". The second assumption is that the ENSO is related to the South AMerican subduction zone. Unfortunately when I read the hypothesis on the tectonic cause of ENSO I was doing research for my own curiosity and did not note the website (all I remember was it was a dot gov). I had cut and paste the hypothesis to notepad and saved it for my own reference. If I relocate the site I will post it here. In the meantime, expect El Nino soon. Volcano in Chile spews lava and blasts ash 12 miles into sky But there are more signs of current activity: Tongan Inspection Team Heads to Undersea Volcano And more arctic seafloor recycled here: Ash Falls on Anchorage as Volcano Keeps Spewing The third assumption is that clouds cool and lack of clouds allow IR warming, ie. Spencers work on positive vs negetive feedback to GHGs. Sorry, I don't need math here to prove he is right, it's common sense.
129924. Patrick 027 at 04:27 AM on 31 March 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        Re 201 - so you've actually done a statistical study of the raw data for yourself? You've never actually posted any source about submarine volcanism being linked to ENSO. You did post a source about ENSO being connected to volcanos via volcanic aerosol climate forcing - noting that not all El Ninos are caused that way. You've never actually posted any source that links any of that to planetary alignments. You did post a source about a planet that would be heated sufficiently by tidal deformation to be kept habitable whereas it would not otherwise be so. Tidal heating of the Earth is a fraction of geothermal heat release, most of which is slow and steady, related to conduction through the crust, and in total is puny in comparison to just the recent changes in climate radiative forcings.
129925. Lee Grable at 07:30 AM on 30 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        Same with your 'tectonic plate' arguement. You just made that up so you could keep "debating".
129926. Lee Grable at 07:05 AM on 30 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        Quietman says, "CO-2 is not a pollutant". I'm dissapointed. I would think that someone as obviously intelligent and educated as you are (no sarcasm) would'nt have to resort to the most simplistic and ignorent "arguements" against the MMGW concensis curculating around. No one is argueing that point. Like no one is argueing about whether plants need CO-2 to live. It's nothing but a manufactured arguement. You can't argue the actual facts of this subject, so you have to make up something to maintain the illusion of a debate. Also, you might want to ask Jim Lovell what he thinks of that claim, concidering that he's had actual experience dealing with CO-2 'pollution.
129927. Lee Grable at 06:40 AM on 30 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        "The green socialist threat". Wow, I wish I had that line when I was a kid and my mom made me do the dishes. I would'nt have had to wash another dish. Of course, my sisters would have done the same thing, and then mom would have decided that since no one else was washing the dishes, she wouldn't either. And my dad? Please! By this time however, we'd all be dead from food poisoning, so problem solved!
129928. Lee Grable at 06:24 AM on 30 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        "The green socialist threat". Wow, I wish I had that line when I was a kid and my mom made me do the dishes. I would'nt have had to wash another dish. Of course, my sisters would have done the same thing, and then mom would have decided that since no one else was washing the dishes, she wouldn't either. And my dad? Please! By this time however, we'd all be dead from food poisoning, so problem solved!
129929. Patrick 027 at 05:34 AM on 30 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        "Making Carbon Markets Work (extended version) Limiting climate change without damaging the world economy depends on stronger and smarter market signals to regulate carbon dioxide" David G. Victor, Danny Cullenward http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=making-carbon-markets-wor "Climate Change Is Happening, Effects Will Be Severe, Now What Will It Cost to Fix It? Could it be true that staving off the severe effects posed by climate change won't impose ruinous costs? The IPCC thinks so" David Biello http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-happening-effects-severe-what-cost-fix-it "A Solar Grand Plan By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions" Ken Zweibel, James Mason, Vasilis Fthenakis http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan “Engineering Silicon Solar Cells to Make Photovoltaic Power Affordable” Steven Ashley http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=engineering-silicon-solar-cells My comments 187, 200, 225, 229, 236, 254, 317, 322, 338,...(a few more in the pipeline) at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/olympian-efforts-to-control-pollution/langswitch_lang/tk And 324, 334-336, 338, 368, 387 and 388 (skip PART II if you want to), 393, 398 (and comments surrounding that by others), 412 (just entered, may not appear and might not be >412) at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/advice-for-a-young-climate-blogger/langswitch_lang/tk
129930. David Horton at 20:19 PM on 29 March 2009
        Climate's changed before
        Ah, why oh why couldn't I see it before. Yes, I have been a denier of nature, of course I have. All that concern about increasing CO2 and the destruction of habitats all around the globe, and the extinction of species, and rising pollution levels in sea and air, all because I, um, deny nature. And those who are happy to see giant corporations wreaking havoc on the planet, and who have absolutely no concern for the consequences, indeed, can see none, other than to mindlessly chant about climate always changing (gee, who knew, what an eye opener it was when I discovered THAT!), they are the what? True conservationists? Humanists? Libertarians? Rhetorical questions, I'm afraid, I really don't want to know how you label the delusions you are working under. Just go away. Learn something about the real world. Come back.
129931. Quietman at 16:31 PM on 29 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        Philippe Conspiracies are covert. The green socialst threat is quite visible. This red/green indoctrination is NOT environmentalism, it is overt anti-capitalism, plain and simple that actually started in the late 1960s. The ones that yell the loudest are the absolute worst true polluters. The home of the green movement is in california, the dirtiest state in the U.S. and home of the biggest hypocrites. But CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Cap and Trade, that's just a money maker for crooked politicians. So where is your conspiracy?
129932. Quietman at 07:35 AM on 29 March 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        ps About your points on correlation. It's how I made a successful livelyhood for 33 years. Troubleshooting and correcting problems for a major manufacturer, ie. I do have a firm grasp on correlations and know how to find the root cause of said symptoms. It's why I have a comfortable retirement.
129933. Quietman at 07:30 AM on 29 March 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        Signal eruptions are in the Andes, in Chile, over the subducted pacific seabed. I posted a link to the Live Science article in this thread (somewhere). It's OUR signal of El Nino because it's symptomatic of the activation of the tectonic process. We THOUGHT thst plate movement was a slow constant process. It is not. Mountain building occurs in fits and spurts (another link I had posted) because plate tectonics are not a constant. Activity increases on a cyclic basis, not just ENSO but all over the planet. External forces such as lunar tides in the mantle and below are compounded by major alignments but since gravity is a weak force it is not noticed by us unless we look at the symptoms. This is what keeps our planet habitable.
129934. Quietman at 07:19 AM on 29 March 2009
        Climate's changed before
        That IS a truism. One man's alarmist is another man's fundamentalist as well. Sorry, I'm agnostic. I see the greens as deniers of nature. CO2 is mans sin, pray for penance from the God Algore.
129935. Philippe Chantreau at 11:39 AM on 28 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        You should get back to reality and get away from the conspiracy theories, Quietman. There aren't any green helicopters out there to watch you.
129936. Patrick 027 at 13:56 PM on 27 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        sigh...:| There is an understandable and even justifiable amount of anger regarding Exxon's influences, but the policies being pursued by the mainstream green movement are not for the purpose of retribution; at the core, they are to correct an externality and stimulate innovation. There are some disagreements among fellow environmentalists/innovators/liberals/etc (and not aligned by group per se) regarding whether to cap-and-trade or tax-and-credit (or cap-and-dividend (Hansen), or tax-and cut other taxes, or cap-and compensate (for climate damages), etc.) - my concern is that, while I support some measures to cushion the economic shocks (ease into a tax rate (start low)), maybe aid for the poor and for some others who will be initially hit harder because of greater dependence on coal, oil, gas - but especially coal, - it concerns me that this may be seen as some permanent part of the solution. Ultimately, the tax/cap and trade portions of policy are supposed to work through market mechanisms and allocation of this or that to specific industries, regions, etc, will only muddy the price signals (if it is more efficient for industries to move to the sun belt to get cheaper energy, then maybe they should move there, and not be subsidized for staying elsewhere). This may be less of a problem for helping the poor (individuals and countries) specifically (increasing returns? - it might make them more energy efficient - but so long as the aid is in money back or some equivalent and not in a reduction in emissions taxes. That's not to say that it doesn't make sense to allow developing countries some grace period before being expected to join policies as full equals. See my referenced comments at 196 at http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm ).
129937. David Horton at 13:38 PM on 27 March 2009
        Climate's changed before
        One man's sceptic is another man's denialist.
129938. Patrick 027 at 13:36 PM on 27 March 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        IPCC and a whole lot'o other people: (2.0 +/- 0.5)*(1.0 +/- 0.1)+(2.0 +/- 0.2) + x = x + 4.05 +/- 0.9 ~= 4.0 +0.95/-0.85 if |x| << 4.05 and |x| << 0.85 (except that if the +/- are 90 % confidence intervals, the limiting values do not add and multiply directly to give the other limiting values (because the probability of two values being simultaneously outside their 90 % confidence interval is smaller than either one in isolation, etc.) Your argument: 45 +/- 10 + 0.001*? has resulted in 50, therefore 0.001 is HUGE! (What signal eruptions? 1. Without any reason to expect a strong causal link, a once-off correlation is not sufficient evidence for much of anything - you need a robust, persistent, statistically significant correlation (As with the CO2 - ice age correlations; wherein theory aids in analysis of the actual causal links). 2a. When looking for a correlation, it is not good to just define a broad range of frequencies and search for whatever falls into that portion of the spectrum and automatically conclude that component is correlated to some central frequency. 2b. Looking at a class of events that are relatively common, one can expect to find coincidental correlations with some other such events. One must ask - is this correlation the kind that would happen without actual physical relationship, direct or otherwise?
129939. Quietman at 13:25 PM on 27 March 2009
        Oceans are cooling
        "Dust Responsible for Most of Atlantic Warming", By LiveScience Staff, 26 March 2009 The results: More than two-thirds of this upward trend in recent decades can be attributed to changes in African dust storm and tropical volcano activity during that time. This was a surprisingly large amount, Evan said. The results, detailed in the March 27 issue of the journal Science, suggest that only about 30 percent of the observed Atlantic temperature increases are due to other factors, such as a warming climate. "This makes sense, because we don't really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast," Evan said. http://www.livescience.com/environment/090326-dust-ocean-warming.html
129940. Quietman at 13:03 PM on 27 March 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        Or in other words, how exactly does a trade wind cause a volcanic eruption? Is 2+2 still 4 or do we go with the IPCC result of 5?
129941. Quietman at 13:01 PM on 27 March 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        Remind me again what happenned in 1976? I remember you posted something about that... An extremely rare procession of the planets in perfect alignment. Predictions made in the early 1970s were based on the gravitational effects on the earth. But nothing major happened in 1976 as expected. They did not realize that something did happen but it was a delayed reaction which started before the full alignment and continued after. This is because the alignment with the gas giants was earlier by a few years and continued a few years after, stressing the earth with each annual alignment, small tug after small tug. It altered the plates, but as you are aware, earthquakes and volcanos are not immediate manidfestations, pressure had to build up first. Hence the increase in earthquakes, volcanos, and the record El Ninos. If El Nino is not caused by tectonics how do you explain the signal eruption at every El Nino?
129942. Quietman at 12:49 PM on 27 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        Sorry, I spoke from my college experience. Two "by the book" professors lowered my cum so I only graduated cum laude by giving me Cs. At least one of them apologized and admitted his error. The other one was an idiot that could not teach, most of the class flunked. I agree with you that it depends on the agenda. What do you think is the Green agenda is by trying to paralyze the country by destroying the energy giants?
129943. Patrick 027 at 05:34 AM on 27 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        My teachers have not demonstrated any such lack of open-mindedness, but both they and I balance that with reasonable skepticism. Past tense, because I'm actually not currently enrolled in formal education (sorry for the wrong impression). Not that you should just trust people per se, but an agenda driven by awareness of a problem is not quite the same as an agenda that drives one to find a problem.
129944. Patrick 027 at 05:28 AM on 27 March 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        "Trade winds are caused by ENSO's root cause, vulcanism/tectonics, not he other way around. " ENSO is a mode of internal variability that can be excited by external bumps but arises in computer models that do not use any submarine volcanic forcing. Changes in trade winds are both cause and effect - they are part of the package. You've never supplied evidence or supporting theory for your proposed mechanism of gravity driving changes in plate tectonics on such a time scale and with such subtle effects as the planet-caused tides on other planets. The theory of CO2-greenhouse effect is much much much much much much much much much better supported by reason and data. Remind me again what happenned in 1976? I remember you posted something about that... "Accordiing to his former boss, Hansen would have been fired for incompetance if he did not have Gore's support." Who was his former boss? And who would have been and not have been fired except for Bush/Cheney et al? "The communist/socialist supporters of the radicals are undermining us with their new "green" cover for their "red" agenda, trying to turn people against capitalism." You've flattered me in the past; now you've irked me. But I don't care about that. The obvious all-encompassing solutions to the problem of cliamte-changing emissions has at its core a fossil fuel sales tax and some similar measures regarding deforestation, cement production, etc. (See some of my comments here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/advice-for-a-young-climate-blogger/langswitch_lang/de (in particular, comments 387 and 388 - feel free to skip over 'PART II' - that's basically a compression of 50 pages of material into one paragraph). A true communist might not go for such a plan - or maybe s/he would - I really don't care either way. Environmentalists may be somewhat divided about specific policies.
129945. Quietman at 05:06 AM on 27 March 2009
        There is no consensus
        Re: "Both John and Chris, and others have made many many observations and provided countless sources backing up their assertions, many of which have not been effectively countered, yet the deniers continue to proclaim their views almost unchanged." The question is the source material. Most if not all the references ASSUME the issue is CO2. An unproven assumption. Skeptics of AGW (not deniers) see the other more probable causes which the alarmists never respond to with a straight answer. They continually side step the issue and come back with another paper on CO2. I already understand CO2 and how it may cause heating as a GHG IF you assume water vapor's positive feedback is greater than it's negetive feedback. Again, an assumption. That's why their math doesn't show real world results, wrong assumption. I prefer to look at the more real forcings that are still only beginning to be understood, ie. the atmosphere is controllled by the oceans and the oceans by the earth's tectonic/vulcanic (not volcanic) forces.
129946. Quietman at 04:55 AM on 27 March 2009
        There is no consensus
        Nicely said Bruce. But you are going to be asked for references (no free thinking permitted here, at least that's what the alarmists say, other people's work is all their proof. John's more tolerant since he's not alarmist).
129947. Quietman at 04:46 AM on 27 March 2009
        Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
        Re: Marc Morano I read articles on http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/ I don't look at the author's names, nor do I care. I read the latest posts bu BOTH sides (left and right columns) to see what the argument is. If you say this guy has an agenda, fine. Hansen has an agenda. Gore has an agenda. If I look for who has an agenda I will have nothing left to read. And yes Pat, good luck on the midterms. So far you have demonstrated an open mind but stick to the "consensus" views for the tests. Your teachers tend to be less open minded.
129948. Quietman at 04:34 AM on 27 March 2009
        Climate's changed before
        Then it is the skeptics that should have a witch hunt. Ok, everyone, lock and load. :)
129949. PeterPan at 02:33 AM on 27 March 2009
        Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
        #8, Thank you very much for your answer (I'm sorry I am so late...) and thanks a lot for your website, it's incredible helpful.
129950. David Horton at 09:10 AM on 26 March 2009
        Climate's changed before
        Nah, witch hunts were against people who were merely imagined to be causing the community harm.

Prev  2591  2592  2593  2594  2595  2596  2597  2598  2599  2600  2601  2602  2603  2604  2605  2606  Next