Recent Comments

Prev  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  2620  2621  2622  2623  2624  Next

Comments 130951 to 131000:

130951. Philippe Chantreau at 12:18 PM on 10 February 2008
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        You're too kind, John. I did lose it at some point, but nothing like the verbal assault I had to endure could have justified. All that stuff was edited (although I'm glad the fiat lux comment was kept, it is kinda funny). The paper you linked looks might interesting, thanks for that.
130952. John Cross at 05:26 AM on 10 February 2008
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        OK, after reading through this series of posts I am convinced that Philippe is a saint and empowered with superhuman patience (and GWB, I have read the paper the Philippe links to in post #57 and as far as I can tell, your comment does not make sense). Philippe: . Here is another paper that presents an interesting result: It is not without its problems (one of which is the command of the English language) but it does a good job of measuring a very difficult quantity. I wanted to pick up a earlier thread about CO2 fertilization. There is a lot of misconception regarding CO2 fertilization. First, we need to recognize that there are two main types of plants that use carbon in a different manner – C3 and C4 plants. The C4’s are more efficient at using CO2 and thus elevated levels do not do them much good. Now, most of the plants are C3s but some of our most important commercial crops (e.g. sugarcane and corn) are C4s. In the C3 case, the main benefit from CO2 is that the plants are able to survive better in water stressed areas. If there is more CO2, the leaf stomata can close more and prevent transpiration. However, in regards to additional growth from CO2 fertilization, this is a good thing if you are trying to grow flowers or perhaps raise oranges. But enhanced CO2 growth is a problem because the nutritional density is changing (nutrition is primarily based on nitrogen, so more CO2 doesn’t do much good). So in fact an animal has to eat more of the material to get the same nutrition. John Cook - Sorry if I am repeating the stuff that you already have on here - I didn't have a chance to research. Busy times here and all! Regards, John Cross
130953. Philippe Chantreau at 05:24 AM on 10 February 2008
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        What are they saying there? It's really obvious: more heat is retained. They measured how much. The heat is retained in the bands of the gases mentioned and consistent for each with the increased concentration of the gas, also measured. You can make the claim that additional heat retained will not affect the climate. I find it a less plausible claim than the opposite.
130954. Philippe Chantreau at 05:00 AM on 10 February 2008
        Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
        From none of those years would the trend line point downward. The most playng with statistics I've seen so far is from all those funny people who want to look at temp from 1998...
130955. GMB at 19:05 PM on 9 February 2008
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        So whata are they saying here. The oceans are a great deal warmer then in 1970 and they ought be releasing a lot more energy. Its not good enough to make the claim that things have changed due to industrial-CO2 without actually demonstrating this. How are they backing the claim up? Don't be calling it MORE EVIDENCE when you didn't have any evidence in the first place and are yet to show why this latest is evidence.
130956. Philippe Chantreau at 15:53 PM on 9 February 2008
        Temp record is unreliable
        I don't see too much of a disagreement on this graph: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/global2.jpg The sources are: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/
130957. Philippe Chantreau at 15:45 PM on 9 February 2008
        It's the sun
        I believe Leif Svalgaard paper (available as a pdf) might answer some of your questions. In any case, TSI and its reconstructions are thorny areas. See this post: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/pmod-vs-acrim/ and part2 of it as well. Would be nice to provide links or references when you mention peer-reviewed stuff, it helps. As an aside, Energy and Environment is not a peer-reviewed science publication.
130958. Wondering Aloud at 10:39 AM on 8 February 2008
        It's the sun
        I am seeing some papers that contradict the statement that the solar-climate connection somehow disappeared in 1975. To me it looks good at least through 2003, but, it seems the fit is good but the cause is too small for the effect. Neither the blue nor the red line in the second from top graph are right today, solar activity was most definitely not trending down in the 1998-2000 period for instance. Could you maybe update or correct them?
130959. Wondering Aloud at 10:25 AM on 8 February 2008
        Models are unreliable
        No, we are saying that Hanson's model from 1988 does not fit the present, even his conservative projections are significantly high of actual observation at this point. (High relative to the ground based measurements and wildly high compared to satellite and balloon measurements to be more specific) If a model can't take past conditions and produce results that fit current reality it would be obviously useless. However since modelers are not simpletons that isn't the problem that was being discussed! The problem is just because current models have been changed so they can somewhat be used to fit past observations that doesn't mean those changes were the correct changes, therefore it doesn't mean that they are making correct predictions. The models still contain assumptions for various parameters that have not or perhaps can not presently be varified. Freeman Dyson is correct here, Models are improving but they have a long way to go before they are better than educated guesses. You should read Dyson's entire statement this is a bit out of context.
130960. Wondering Aloud at 03:21 AM on 8 February 2008
        Temp record is unreliable
        Yes satellite nad balloon data have good agreement, but isn't the important thing here that neither of them correlate well with the surface record? I should have sited the actual papers but I thought you'd rather look yourself now I'll have to remember to dig it back out.
130961. Wondering Aloud at 03:16 AM on 8 February 2008
        Has solar cycle 24 begun?
        We are on opposite sides here. I am freezing my ... off and warming would be such a relief. Getting to work at -22 is just not much fun. This winter is threatining to break low temperature and total snowfall records across the American heartland and I hope it's only La Nina.
130962. Philippe Chantreau at 17:21 PM on 6 February 2008
        There's no empirical evidence
        What speculative large scale effect could stem from more insulation with unchanged energy input? Could it be similar to the effect of more energy input with unchanged insulation? That insulation's extent has been verified. Changes over time of outgoing long wave radiation have been measured and shown to have decreased by the amount expected from increased GH gases: Harries et al, Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature. 2001 Mar 15;410(6826):355-7 Abstract here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html "The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate." It essentially means that there is more heat retained in the system in the bands of the mentioned gases. It is claimed that this additional heat is warming the climate. Is that such a bold claim? Now, I'm sure Will Nitschke will find objections. This is where the logic breaks down. When ample evidence has been gathered and critics of a theory continue to refute it, because no amount of evidence can ever be satisfying and they will not state what kind of evidence would be so, or define it in a way that they know is impossible to reach. Indeed, there is no such thing as absolute certainty.
130963. Dodo at 08:37 AM on 5 February 2008
        Has solar cycle 24 begun?
        Yes, John, you are absolutely right. If warming resumes after an almost decade-long "plateau" (Pachauri promised to look into it), most reasonable skeptics may well join the AGW camp by 2015. No big deal. But what if the opposite happens?
        Response: If the opposite happens, I'll be embarrassed but delighted to be wrong :-)
130964. Dodo at 08:32 AM on 5 February 2008
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        Not that one month means much, but the RSS temperature reading for Jan. 2008 has arrived. It was the coldest month since 2000, enforcing the current decadal cooling trend.
        Response: The cool temperatures of Jan 2008 are due to an unusually strong La Nina effect (the strongest in a decade).
130965. Philippe Chantreau at 18:41 PM on 4 February 2008
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Here is another interesting piece of evidence, measuring escaping long wave radiation: Abstract: "Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate." Harries et al, Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature. 2001 Mar 15;410(6826):355-7
130966. Philippe Chantreau at 16:39 PM on 2 February 2008
        Temp record is unreliable
        I mistakenly included both UHI and microsite effects in the previous remark, UHI would still apply.
130967. Philippe Chantreau at 23:38 PM on 1 February 2008
        Temp record is unreliable
        Another point, mentioned by John Cook on the "More on Urban Heat Island" thread, is that there is also good agreement with satellite data and weather balloon data, both immune to the micro site effects as well as UHI. If these were really that much of a factor, there would be significant discrepancies, but all the trends are consistentt.
130968. Philippe Chantreau at 21:26 PM on 1 February 2008
        Temp record is unreliable
        It would be nice to give us a little more detail, W.A., especially considering the terminology employed (fraud). What are the papers criticized by E&E (which is itself not a peer-review science publication)? Have the authors responded to it? This journal is far from being an objective reliable source: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/aug/policy/pt_skeptics.html This article treats of how UHI affects observations: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf As mentioned higher, John V has plotted the data from the "good" sites (per Watts definition) and has found very good agreement with GISSTEMP, so they must be doing something right. It is worth emphasizing that Watts'effort concentrated on micro site effects, a different problem than UHI; nevertheless, agreement was still there in the data. I would not venture to say that climate science dispenses from going through and evaluating actual data. This RC post is of some interest as to how the UHI effect is accounted for: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/#more-454 I believe the post references this article: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article3abstract.pdf Is that one of the 2 criticized by E&E?
130969. Philippe Chantreau at 20:32 PM on 1 February 2008
        It's the sun
        There is new evidence that TSI may have varied a lot less than previously thought, which would require an extremely high sensitivity to allow for such small variations to influence climate. http://www.leif.org/research/GC31B-0351-F2007.pdf
130970. frankbi at 04:56 AM on 31 January 2008
        Models are unreliable
        And besides, if models can be "fudged" to fit anything -- as our `skeptics' claim -- why are the _same_ `skeptics' saying that they can't get Hansen's model to fit the data? Can it be because our `skeptics' are simply full of junk?
130971. Barry at 17:14 PM on 30 January 2008
        It's the sun
        I question the physics behind the response: a crucial finding was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975....... The assumption is that there is always an energy balance between heat radiated from earth and input from the sun. Lets say that solar activity remained above this energy balance, one would have to assume that temperature would still increase, until some new energy balance is achieved. This means that temperature can still increase as long as the input is greater that the output. basic example: take a pot of water at room temperature, it is in an energy balance, and temperature is constant. then take that pot and turn the stove on high the temperature will increase then turn the elopement down, and the water still warms up. until it reaches an energy balance. It does not seem reasonable to assume that reduced solar activity always equals reduced temperatures on earth. Reduce solar activity, that is still more active then in 1900 should then still result in increasing temperature.
        Response: If solar activity increases then plateaus, the climate will then be in energy imbalance with more energy coming in than radiating back out to space. The earth will immediately start warming. As it warms, the energy radiated back to space gradually increases until the climate reaches radiative equilibrium. Then warming stops. This period it takes to reach equilibrium is refered to as climate time lag.
        
        However, this is not what is observed over the 20th century. Solar activity levels out in the 1950's. However, the modern global warming trend began in the mid 1970s. If the sun was the cause of global warming, the planet would've been at its highest energy imbalance in the 1950s. Then the planet would gradually have approached equilibrium over the next few decades.
        
        The opposite has occured. The energy imbalance has in fact increased over the past 3 decades and is still increasing. Of course, we now know why the planet is in radiative imbalance - due to an enhanced greenhouse effect caused by increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane.
130972. Dodo at 06:33 AM on 30 January 2008
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        Good evening. Maybe this discussion could be enriched with comments from the IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri and the United Kingdom's Meteorological office (Royal, I presume). From a recent Reuters' piece: "Rajenda Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities." Source: http://tinyurl.com/3doxvc And then the Met office. They recently issued a forecast for 2008, stating this much: "The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from any of the years 2001-2007, given the uncertainties in the data." Source: http://tinyurl.com/2ezepk So, the IPCC is looking into "the plateau", and the Met Office says it persists into its' eight year, and who knows, after another eight years it may be very very cold again. Over at Tamino's Open mind there was some discussion about whether we should set 2015 as the year when the science could be declared settled;-). But the details seem to take some time to agree upon. The problem with outliers!
130973. frankbi at 04:05 AM on 30 January 2008
        Models are unreliable
        Oh, and ClimateAudit is a barrel of laughs: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/01/climate_audit_comedy_of_errors.php
130974. frankbi at 04:02 AM on 30 January 2008
        Models are unreliable
        "The models might be right but they haven't got a good track record except in hind sight. (After they've been fudged to fit the past)" "Leaving aside the silly notion that you can 'prove' a model's accuracy by checking it's fitting to the historical record--I mean honestly, you are aware that these models are tweaked *until* they fit the historical record, aren't you?" Nonsense. Are you saying that Hansen, way back in 1988, was able to travel in a time machine to 2006 and back, so that he could make the adjustments to his 1988 models to make them agree all the way to the present? The denialists have nothing but nonsense.
130975. Roy Latham at 09:02 AM on 29 January 2008
        Has solar cycle 24 begun?
        There is not only an 11 year solar activity cycle, there are cycles running at periods of about 75, 300, and 1100 years. The cycles are not precise, but they continue with predictability. If you add up all the cycles, you get quite a complicated picture of ups and downs. Global climate tracks that complicated curve with remarkable reliability. This is nothing new, hundreds of papers have been published on the subject. What is new is proof of the physical mechanism that relates solar activity to global climate. The mechanism is that solar magnetic storms deflect cosmic rays. Cosmic rays strike particles in the atmosphere causing them to form nucleation centers, which in turn increases cloud cover. Cloud cover reflects the sun and causes cooling. So, few sunspots means a cold earth. For example, the Little Ice Age was a long period with very few sunspots. CO2 lags the temperature change because as the oceans warm they hold less dissolved CO2.
130976. Roy Latham at 08:41 AM on 29 January 2008
        What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
        What theory that explains how the miniscule variations in the earths orbit could produce the initial temperature rise? How is this theory reflected in climate models? BY contrast, there is a well-proven theory of how variations in solar flux are amplified to produce not only the initial temperature rise. Basically, the solar flux affects cloud cover, and clouds reflect radiation whereby the earth cools. This explains not only interglacial warming, but the up and down climate variations of the past century - warming then cooling then warming again, and for the last seven years cooling. How do atmospheric scientists model solar flux and cloud formation in climate models? These are critical because only a 4% variation in cloud cover would account for climate change. They do not model it at all. Instead they assume an unknown mechanism by which carbon dioxide effects are amplified. The dominant green house gas is water vapor. CO2 is less than 5%, so of course some magic is required to make CO2 dominate.
130977. Max at 10:41 AM on 28 January 2008
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        Bob Carter’s article is almost 18 months old now, and we now have temperature records for both 2006 and 2007. Interestingly, both years were predicted to be “record warm” years, with the usual media hype about this being additional proof of alarming global warming caused by man. Both turned out to be rather normal years, but there was not much media hype, since (as we all know) “good news is no news”. But as I showed earlier, if we compare the past decade we see that there is still warming, but that the rate has slowed down considerably in comparison with the earlier record. Sure, there are two ENSO years in the record, 1998 and 2005 (which also turn out to be the two warmest years). But, then again, there will always be ENSO years and scientists have been unable to predict when these will occur or explain exactly why they occur when they do. The question that this site raised should not have been whether or not it has warmed since 1998 but rather whether or not the rate of warming has decreased since 1998 as compared to earlier decades, and if so, whether or not this indicates a trend of slowdown in temperature increase or just an anomaly caused by individual ENSO years.
130978. Max at 10:42 AM on 27 January 2008
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        Has it warmed over the past decade? Based on the global surface record compiled by the Hadley Centre and the global UAH satellite record there has been warming over the past decade. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 Plotting the two temperature records for the last 10 years shows that: · The surface record showed a linear increase of 0.062 degrees C per decade · The satellite record showed a linear increase of 0.059 degrees C per decade The two warmest years during this period were 1998 (a strong ENSO year) and 2005 (a somewhat weaker ENSO year). Both of these rates of increase are considerably lower than the average rate of increase over the past 28 years, when satellite readings first became available: · The surface record showed a linear increase of 0.171 degrees C per decade · The satellite record showed a linear increase of 0.142 degrees C per decade
130979. Carrick at 02:54 AM on 26 January 2008
        Al Gore got it wrong
        Gore mischaracterizes the effect of global warming on Greenland/Antarctica ice fields/sheets in a big way, and mischaracterizes the long-term consequences of global warming on them as a result. In my opinion, this should be bumped to the "he got it wrong" column.
130980. paledriver at 08:21 AM on 24 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        addressing claims about the IPCC............... "John McLean and the NRSP Category: Global Warming Posted on: December 20, 2007 1:02 PM, by Tim Lambert Hey, remember John McLean? The guy who kept steering Andrew Bolt into brick walls? Well he's teamed up with Tom Harris of the NRSP to accuse the IPCC of lying about the scientific support for its reports: In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. First, there were much more than 62 reviewers for chapter 9. McLean and Harris have only counted the reviewers of the second order draft and ignored the more numerous comments on the first order draft. Second, they mislead by giving the impression that 60% of the reviewers disagreed with the IPCC, but half of the comments (572 of them!) were made by Vincent Gray, with 97% of them rejected. Only 16% of the comments by other reviewers were rejected. Gray was also responsible for most the rejected comments on the first order draft. Examples of Gray's rejected comments include: Insert after "to" "the utterly ridiculous assumption of" Insert after "Bayesian" "(or super-guesswork)" Insret before "Calibrated" "Bogus" Dave Semeniuk has a more detailed analysis of Gray's comments -- 50 of them were Gray repeatedly asking for "anthropogenic" to be replaced with "human-induced". Third, as Richard Littlemore points out, it is pretty dodgy for the NRSP to complain about "vested interest" when their own vested interest is so blatant. But how did McLean and Harris come up with their claim that 55 of the reviewers had "serious vested interest"? McLean gives details in a piece published by the SPPI (an oil industry funded think tank that apparently does not count as a vested interested to McLean). Scientists were declared to have a vested interest if they were an IPCC author, or an IPCC author of a previous assessment, or if any of their work was cited by the report, or if they worked for a government, or if they work for an organization that gets government funding, or if they have a "possible commercial vested interest in the claim of man-made warming". Basically that leaves amateurs like Gray and McKitrick. In one of his comments Gray asked them to cite one of his Energy and Environment papers. Fortunately it was rejected, or he would have been ruled out as well. John Mashey examined McLean's background and it seems that while the National Post awarded him a PhD he actually has no scientific qualifications at all, just a Bachelor of Architecture. Which makes McLean's rant against a critic, which was captured by Nexus 6 particularly funny." http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/john_mclean_and_the_nrsp.php
130981. Wondering Aloud at 06:10 AM on 23 January 2008
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        According to Carter the slope is indeed negative since then. However, I believe he is quite clear in saying the amount is not really significant. The data above does not match the data set he is using.
        Response: I have corresponded with Bob Carter about the data he uses - in articles where he states the temperature trend is negligible or even cooling, he's erroneously using upper troposphere data. See the footnote of Satellites show no warming.
130982. paledriver at 10:15 AM on 22 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        420? In the original 400 I found many who were completely unqualified, some of whom are skeptical, some of whom are not. Many who are qualified who are either not actually skeptical, are skeptical only of some proposed solutions or who have actually stated their agreement WITH the consensus. The list was not made to hold up to close scrutiny. I imagine it's the same with the additional 20.
130983. Wondering Aloud at 09:50 AM on 22 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        Well that awful Inhofe 400 is now over 420 as in the time it took for you to complain about the one that didn't sign 20 more "scientists" did. But, it isn't important. My problem with this is, it isn't an election, you claim the skeptics inflate their numbers, maybe so, beyond question the AGW catastrophy folks inflate theirs. At least two of the best known "deniers" are IPCC lead authors. Dozens of others are listed as contributers or reviewers, several have been so disgusted with the process they withdrew and asked their names be removed. This means they are counted on both sides. What is that overwelming consensus? Here is what is presented as that consensus: Human CO2 emissions will cause massive catastrophic warming, It will cause disaster in the near future ruining the world for our children. This warming will lead to massive flooding, drought, wide scale starvation, wars, plagues, melting of the polar ice, flooding of huge areas of the world... Refer to my post number 2 above. Which is closer to the consensus? Al Gore with 23 feet of sea level rise this century or the "deniers" with 15-20 cm ? Al Gore with his talk of "unprecidented warming". Or the "deniers" claims that the world seems to have wamed about .6-.7 C over the last century and that may be somewhat due to human activity. Most of the "deniers" probably don't even have that much trouble with the consensus as stated in the first paragraph of the original post. They are vilified largely because they refuse to accept the supposed consensus I just described. In general I agreed with the stated consensus in the original post, though based on the recent data and the trouble with the historical record I think now I would not use the word "most".
130984. paledriver at 08:41 AM on 22 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        p.s. I'm not claiming that there's no dissent. Just that there IS a consensus. An overwhelming one.
130985. paledriver at 08:35 AM on 22 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        the point remains that the deniers flesh out their "petitions" and "lists" with fakes, fraudulent claims, and people who in no way have made any claims against the consensus and pointedly say so. I've pointed out one of many, (which I've linked to above) And the "400" was brought up on post#3, which is why I even referred to fraudulent "Petition Project" in the first place.
130986. Wondering Aloud at 07:45 AM on 22 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        Again? now its one out of 400 and who the heck was talking about the Inhofe 400? The point remains it is not a popularity contest despite all the attempted score keeping by the IPCC fans. Also many of the prominent scientists counted in that score are in fact the so called deniers.
130987. paledriver at 06:49 AM on 22 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        Let's take a look at the "Inhofe 400" Meteorologist George Waldenberg was named. In response to his inclusion ,Mr. Waldenberg sent an email to Senator Inhofes' staff that began "Marc, Matthew: Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus". You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility. You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research". One shining example. I have many more.
130988. paledriver at 06:42 AM on 22 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        I'm sorry. Are you a Packer fan? Picked another losing cause? I'm sorry again,but I couldn't help myself on that one. Great game though.
130989. Wondering Aloud at 04:09 AM on 22 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        Wow, that was terrible punctuation. Darn Packers
130990. Wondering Aloud at 13:59 PM on 21 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        I have the article you claim was "formatted to mimic..." sitting right here. It doesn't look like it is anything of the sort. In fact it clearly lists Author and who puplished it. It looks like a review of literature type paper which...it is. As for mass mailing as it was done with a tiny budget it was nothing of the sort. In fact I never even got one despite being on one of the main mailing lists they supposedly used. How many copies of this supposed mass mailing did you get? Aren't you bothered by a clear attempt by the "enviros" to commit fraud with fake names? Shouldn't you question why they think this is needed or something to be proud of. Is it ok to be dishonest as long as they are on your side? A sample of 30 in which some back down (people get fired for being skeptics in this field you know)is instantly credible to you while you arm wave away 17,000 You are pointing out 1 fake signature out of 19,000! Really? It was caught, we had thousands of Fake names on our voting list in one nearby city alone. You are avoiding the main issue. Consensus is not science but if it was the supposed 2500 scientists of the IPCC report have every failing you mention of the petition project and more important the people who signed the petition agreed with what it said. The same can not be said for the IPCC and its supposed 2500. Counted in that IPCC number are hundreds of non scientists, NGO reps (these are people with an agenda)and most importantly reviewers, many of whom don't even agree with the conclusions of the IPCC report. In fact most of the famous "deniers" are included in the 2500 IPCC counts. Someone made the mistake of asking them after the second IPCC report (surveyed participants) and found that over 60% did not agree with the summary for policy makers. Maybe we should stop pretending numbers and NGOs are scientists and that consensus is science. It's that claim that raises huge red flags for me.
130991. paledriver at 01:35 AM on 20 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        i will anyways......................... The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories. The petition requests signatories list their degree (B.S., M.S., or Ph.D.) and to list their scientific field.[3] The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute". The Petition Project itself used to state: “ Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.[2] ” In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote: “ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15] ” In 2005, Scientific American reported: “ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ” In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote: “ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17]
130992. paledriver at 01:27 AM on 20 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001. They openly lied about endorsement from National Academy of Sciences, were caught, the Academy issues a statement disclaiming any connection, they re-release it again anyways, and you're foolish and gullible enough to buy it and defend it. Would you like me to post a sample of the signers? That would be embarrassing for you.
130993. Will Nitschke (www.capitaloffice.com.au) at 08:32 AM on 18 January 2008
        Models are unreliable
        Here is another posting assessing Hansen's model work in a not very favourable way: Whether these alternate assessments of Hansen's work stand up is a separate issue. I would point out we should not accept them blindly any more than we should blindly accept Hansen's paper on how brilliant Hansen's previous work was, as this naive article does...
130994. Wondering Aloud at 06:52 AM on 16 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        I think I'd put the list on the petition project up against the IPCC list, many of whom disagree with IPCC conclusions, any day of the week. The listed expose here paledriver is pure rubbish. Maybe you should investigate the actual list rather than the fake and distorted claims about it.
130995. Philippe Chantreau at 14:01 PM on 15 January 2008
        Mars is warming
        Mars cooled down signficantly between the Viking landings and the recent "warming" trend, while Earth was consistently warming throughout that time, making the correlation highly doubtful. Pluto has not been observed through a complete orbit yet, arguing about its "climate" is pointless. The observations match expectations from its seasonal cycle and the albedo changes seen since the 50s (likely due to collection of space materials). Furthermore, if the Sun could really throw out the energy to affect Pluto so much, we would be frying. There is no convincing evidence that Jupiter's "climate" (once again more a figure of speech than a observed reality) is prone to be affected by variations in TSI so minute that we had to have satellites around Earth to actually mesure them. Among the inner planets, Venus, most likely to show changes due to its proximity to the Sun and huge greenhouse effect is not showing any warming.
130996. BestTimesNow at 00:24 AM on 15 January 2008
        Evaporating the water vapor argument
        During the Cretaceous Period the earth was about 80% covered with water and tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present and deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today's. (Per Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous ----------------- “CO2 levels are usually invoked to explain Cretaceous warmth and the flat Cretaceous temperature gradient. This makes sense, since the very active mid-ocean spreading ridges might well have bee associated with out-gassing of CO2 from deep within the Earth. Unfortunately, the geology of the period and stable carbon isotope records, don't really support the idea as well as they might.” “Even the most sophisticated quantitative models can't reconstruct the flatness of the Cretaceous temperature gradient. Either our temperature estimates are off, or some important factor is missing from the models. Since dinosaurs and semi-tropical vegetation are known from within 10° of the Cretaceous poles, the problem is likely to be with the theory.” http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Mesozoic.htm Take a look at the temperature vs latitude chart. With the earth being cover 80% with water, the “Water World” type moisture effect was coming into play. IMHO
130997. stewart at 01:14 AM on 13 January 2008
        It hasn't warmed since 1998
        These posts are useful. plfreeman, there's enough data from monthly, weekly, or daily summaries, that the regression and correlation are both statistically significant, even after correcting for autocorrelation and using various methods. Here's a good link to check it out, by a mathematician specializing in time series analysis: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/ The strong version of Carter's claim that warming stopped in 1998 requires the slope to be zero or negative since then. It isn't, therefore the strong version is proven false (and the 60 individuals who signed that have demonstrated their commitment to ideology over data). Even the weak version ('no significant warming') is shown false.
130998. BestTimesNow at 12:23 PM on 12 January 2008
        Evaporating the water vapor argument
        “When looking at water vapor, the amount humans have added to the atmosphere today is the sum of the past few weeks (at MOST), since water has its own equilibrium and just rains out.” ------------------ I agree that the water vapor will rain out, but we are adding the water vapor in a daily process, making the land areas artificially more humid (every day) than they would have been. This man made humidity reduces the heat that is radiated back into space. Seventy percent of the earth is covered with water. Let’s look at a “Water World” type earth with no land. The humidity created by being 100% ocean would cause the planet’s temperature to increase. We would have very small daily temperature swings, at any location and I doubt that we would even have ice caps at the poles. What if the earth was 100% land with no open water? The result would be a planet with no humidity, with big daily temperature swings, but with the net effect of having a much colder planet. The effect of our forcing water into the atmosphere is similar to changing the surface water from 70% to say 75%. It will have and effect on the earths temperature. CO2 is not a factor in these examples and it’s not a major factor in global warming.
130999. paledriver at 10:07 AM on 10 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        sorry about the double post, and for the unintended smarmy tone.
131000. paledriver at 04:57 AM on 10 January 2008
        There is no consensus
        that list of 400 is about as big a hoax as the "Petition Project" was. Here's one of many sites exposing it. http://gristmill.grist.org/user/Andrew%20Dessler would you like to try again, Mr. Nitschke?

Prev  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  2620  2621  2622  2623  2624  Next