Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 Next
Comments 131151 to 131200:
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:24 AM on 13 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
As I said, you can check the posts and see for yourself whether or not the critics are valid. Beck's CO2 curve is based on the assumption that there were humongous biospheric fluxes of CO2, which are simply not physically possible. Furthermore, the isotopic signature that would go with this is absent from the proxies. It explains CO2 rise as a feedback to temp increase but with inconsistent response depending when it's convenient for him or not. It also assigns peaks in CO2 in the curve to volcanic eruptions, while the Mauna Loa record shows no such variations associated with Pinatubo or El Chichon. There is too much litterature to link to on the subject, just about all current research on CO2 changes over time will contradict Beck. This piece of work was "published" by Energy and Environment, which does not really have a peer-review process but instead is subject to the whims of the editor, Sonja Boehmer Christensen. She has a history of sympathy for the Young Earth creationist ideas, among other things. On another occasion, Beck took an IPCC graph and doctored it so as to exaggerate past temperature changes by a factor of 3 (chenged the scale on the Y axis). He also takes care of stopping the graph at 1970, although the x axis continues to 2000, which allows him to suggest that the MWP was warmer than today. If today's temp were on that graph, they would be way higher than anything in the MWP. It would still be useless, since that reconstruction is old and totally outdated now. Beck's graph (graph only, no comments): http://www.realclimate.org/images/beck_modified_large.jpg Original IPCC curve is in the RC thread. Beck's article in German can be found here: http://www.readers-edition.de/2007/05/07/der-co2-betrug-der-groesste-skandal-der-wissenschaftsgeschichte-der-neuzeit In this one, rather interesting is the apparently cyclic evolution of temperature, which seems to be Beck's take on Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. According to most research, these cycles do have a periodicity around 1500 years, but they are not present in proxies for the past 23000 years or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard-Oeschger_event (ref at bottom of page). Beck shows spikes at -400, then at 1200, so far so good (except for the lack of D-O cycles for 20 millenias). However, there is another one correponding to our recent temp increase. It should not be there before 2800, if the periodicity is conserved. If you look carefully at Beck's graph, you'll see a little break in the x axis, and then suddenly, the scale shifts. The curve, however continues its beautiful sinusoid movement unchanged to conveniently peak at present time. Simply hilarious. Enough about Beck, that's already a lot of time wasted on this. -
Quietman at 05:12 AM on 13 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi I am not familiar with C3 and C4 (except for the plastique kind) but from what you said I take it that pines are C3 and maples, elms and oarks are C4. What about the leafy evergreens like cedars, C3 or C4? -
Quietman at 05:08 AM on 13 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Phillipe Re: "Beck is a buffoon who fakes data." Other than Real Climate*, can you prove either of these claims? Beck being right or wrong means nothing to me or to my argument but I am curious about the attacks. *Sorry but thier alarmist reputation leaves much to be desired. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:01 AM on 13 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Mizimi, your equation melting ice=colder ocean does not quite work out. Melting ice means no albedo and increased absorbtion of solar energy by the Arctic ocean, leading to higher ocean temp. Arctic biomass does not like it. If you're talking about the German teacher Beck who cooks graphs, it's worth pointing to the other side of his story: Beck is a buffoon who fakes data. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/curve-manipulation-lesson-2/langswitch_lang/in http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/ Whether or not you agree with RC's position their critique of Beck is exactly on point. Data is data (or in Beck's case, the lack thereof) -
Quietman at 03:30 AM on 13 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
John While not proof of anything, an interesting related article on The Worst Hurricanes at Live Science. -
Quietman at 03:11 AM on 13 September 2008CO2 lags temperature
Dan Ok, now I am confused. I thought we were discussing CO2 here. But a reduced sensitivity to GHGs in general would also explain less sensitivity to water vapor would it not? -
Quietman at 03:05 AM on 13 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Mizimi Yes the Arctic and Polar bears do heat things up. -
Quietman at 02:51 AM on 13 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi and Pep After reading both comments and the rebuttal I tend to agree somewhat with Beck, but also fail to see the relavence to sensitivity. -
Quietman at 02:44 AM on 13 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Philippe I see what you mean by ink bottle. I still remember Diana from when I was growing up on Long Island. There were a few nasty storms back then. But they seemed to have been lass intense until recently. I am more curious in what caused the lull. -
Mizimi at 02:15 AM on 13 September 2008What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
HS: The paleoproxy graph WA.& you posted in the "Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?" thread is a beautiful example to show there IS a limit to which CO2 can effect temperature changes..the 'saturation argument'. For most of the periods shown, temperature trundles along nicely at 22C despite massive changes in CO2 levels, which for me, indicates saturation is reached at quite low levels of CO2. -
Mizimi at 01:48 AM on 13 September 2008Determining the long term solar trend
Pump more CO2 into the air and warm the place up and plants grow better and bigger....reaction mass increases roughly 100% for every 10C rise...CO2 gets locked up, more clouds, more precipitation, more CO2 from declining oceanic planktonic activity, more CO2, more clouds, more CO2 washed out back into the land where it becomes carbonates, over time CO2 goes down, temp drops, the balance shifts from land to ocean again and the cycle continues. This has been going on ever since plant life started photosynthesis and the small amount of extra CO2 we release will not substantially affect the cycle.Response: On the contrary, the amount of CO2 we release has raised CO2 levels to its highest level in at least 800,000 years (according to ice core readings that go back that far) -
Dan Pangburn at 01:19 AM on 13 September 2008Models are unreliable
Apparently climatologists do not have much grounding in how feedback works. Unaware of their ignorance, they invoke net positive feedback in their GCMs. This mistake causes the GCMs to predict significant ‘enhanced global warming’. Anyone who has the ability and interest to look at the NOAA data from Vostok Ice Cores for the last glaciation (and prior glaciations) will discover that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Graphs of NOAA and other credible data, all fully sourced so they can be verified, can be seen at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. (The web site is controlled by Middlebury, not me.) Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback does not exist. Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm -
Dan Pangburn at 01:09 AM on 13 September 2008Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
The point is that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. Examination of the temperature data of the last and prior glaciations from NOAA as determined from Vostok ice cores reveals that temperature trends reversed direction irrespective of carbon dioxide level. This proves that there is no net positive feedback. Climatologists, who apparently don't know how feedback works don't realize this. Unaware of their ignorance, they impose net positive feedback in their GCMs which causes them to predict substantial warming from carbon dioxide increase. Without feedback, the GCMs do not predict significant Global Warming. Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm -
Philippe Chantreau at 00:53 AM on 13 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
This isn't really about initiating storms. The number of storms is very much a matter of debate but from what i know it would be very hard to establish a trend there. How the storms intensify is a different problem. I'm not sure that it is really possible to say that the past 30 years show no ocean warming. According to this paper, the past 30 years have seen significant ocean warming: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html Before Emmanuel, this paper looked at increased SSTs and found them to be the best explaining factor for higher intensity storms: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1123560v1 -
Mizimi at 00:47 AM on 13 September 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
Fear is the greatest behavioural driver in mankind. It is dominant in all our thinking patterns and activities and (sadly) is currently beginning to supplant rationality and reason ( Just look at PC and its effects) Because living in a perpetual state of fear is untenable, we seek ways to 'externalise' it into 'problems' we can solve. This reduces the internal tensions fear generates. Prove this particular problem does not exist or cannot be solved and the fear will be transferred into another problem....no it isn't CO2, instead it's all that water vapour we are putting into the air...... -
Mizimi at 00:32 AM on 13 September 2008The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
If I understand the sat system, it measures changes in the earth's mass distribution (gravity flux) and that is used to calculate MSL. Problem: How do you separate lunar effects? The moon causes two tides on opposite sides of the earth ( the second is gravity rebound) I really cannot see how you could distingiush a signal from the noise?? -
Mizimi at 23:58 PM on 12 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Lee Grable: We all lie, every day of our lives. We lie by omission. We lie by commission. We lie in error, even though we believe we have the truth. We lie by quoting truth out of context. We lie by not telling the whole truth. We lie to others and to ourselves in order to make life bearable. We lie by selecting information that suits our purposes. We lie to avoid facing the truth.. We all lie, in many ways and for many reasons. Data has been omitted from various studies because 'it did not fit' (including AGW supporters), and there is currently a debate about this; Beck's 180 year analysis of chemical CO2 records. This site has 'lies' in it. In one thread is a statement that there are 300 stations worldwide measuring CO2 - which is not true, there are 298 datastreams but not all measure CO2 and some of those streams come from the same stations. Whilst the statement is untrue, it does not invalidate the argument that there is sufficient empirical evidence available to validate the argument, nor does it cause me to dismiss out of hand any other statements made by the person concerned. -
Mizimi at 21:46 PM on 12 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
WELL, I think this thread just melted a few more km of sea ice! The graph curve shows an increasing trend downwards. The question...is this natural or man-made is a bit spurious ( or are we not 'natural'?)...and the answer, despite all the heated exchanges and hyperbole, is we don't know. All we KNOW is what the graph shows and the rest is an attempt to explain what we see. It is not good enough to simply say it is AGW...it may be, but until it is realistically modelled and all other factors shown to be irrelevent, then I will remain unconvinced of the argument. In any event, melting sea ice = drop in ocean temp - more biomass (plankton like it cool) = more sequestration of CO2 and so we go round again. The system as a whole has numerous ways to address imbalances as it has (successfully)in the past. -
Mizimi at 18:33 PM on 12 September 2008Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
Food for thought: "All flesh is grass" is a Truth. Yet the grasses we rely on for our existence ( grain producers) only appeared in the fossil record around 8mya when CO2 levels were dropping. C4 plants are more efficient photosynthesizers than C3's and release less CO2 back into the air during photorespiration, so over a period of time they reduce atmospheric CO2. C3 plants ( trees, woody plants et al) 'suffocate' at CO2 levels below 220ppm, and began to decline as grasses took over various habitats until a near extinction event occurred. Without that event, we would not be here today; arguably (from our point of view) this event was a good thing. Clearly, if we reduce CO2 levels ( for whatever reason) we need to be aware that it will have deleterous effects on certain species of plants ( and the life forms that feed off them) whereas increasing CO2 will not. Any temperature effect that may arise from CO2 rises also affects plant life; roughly, a 10C rise in reaction temp causes a 100% increase in reaction mass, so higher temps (within limits) means greater growth and less land areas under cultivation. [Experiments with grasses indicate a 50% increase in growth @ Co2 levels of 700ppm and a corresponding decrease in lignin - the woody indigestible bits]. -
Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman et al, The climate change over the past few million years has zero, zilch, nada, nothing to do with any change between the '30s and today. They are completely different mechanisms. Every metric tells us that it is warmer now than in the '30s. You reject this conclusion, based on numerous independent observations, in favor someone's crackpot theory about plate tectonics. A few other various topics: 1) It is physically impossible for the Earth to behave like Venus. Temperatatures would have to be warm enough to boil the ocean for that to happen. 2) The 619 authors of AR4 WGI are listed here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf They are all scientists. The only time politicians are involved is in drafting the Summary for Policymakers, and even then they can't override the lead authors. As for scientific content, Chapter 9 alone (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change) has 10 pages of citations. 3) The IPCC accurately summarizes the state of the peer reviewed science, which is why the relevent scientific societies (who are responsible for actually producing the science) endorse the IPCC findings. 4) The record Antarctic Sea Ice Extent was recorded in 1973, the first year we have satellite data. http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_datasets.html 5) These were the predictions for September Sea Ice Extent made back in May (in millions of square km) From http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/report_may.php 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.8 X 2 4.1 4.2 X 2 4.4 4.5 X 2 5.0 5.3 5.5 The average prediction was 4.3 million km and the median was 4.2. 2007 was about 4.3 million km. Current conditions are at about 4.7 million square km. The 1979 to 2000 average is about 7 million square km. 2008's melt will not match 2007, but it falls within the expected range. 6) An enhanced greenhouse effect implies a cooling stratosphere, a drop in outgoing longwave radiation, and nights that warm faster than days. Each one of these predictions has been measured. -
Quietman at 15:14 PM on 12 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi Thanks -
Quietman at 15:11 PM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
John Yes, that is the part I dont get. The intense storms are very recent (not the last 30 years but the last 10 maybe) and this is when the oceans don't show warming? I am not positive but was that not the issue of the missing ocean heat? So is it the hot spots or the cold spots where these storms originate? The 2005 paper talks about the tropics and they mention hotter air. But I thought it was primarily the opposing air currents meeting at the equator that iniates cyclones and hurricanes so I am having difficulty following the logic. I am not being skeptical about this, I just don't understand what they are saying, it's like something is being left out or assumed. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:29 PM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Not sure what Quietman is referring to, but this subject is indeed an "ink bottle." From looking at what I can comprehend, it seems that the SSTs/lower trop. temp. differential is an important factor in the rate of storm intensification. The past 2 Atlantic seasons have seen some of the fastest intensifying storms ever recorded. Still, the significance of hurricane/tropical storm activity is somewhat unsure. RC had a post on this some time ago that pointed to major difficulty with the evolution of data quality/quantity. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/tropical-cyclone-history-part-ii-paleotempestology-still-in-its-infancy/langswitch_lang/ -
Quietman at 06:59 AM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
PS in the hurricanes thread Alan M. posted a comment with a link that seems relavent. This is a subject that I find puzzling. I do understand that warmer oceans would have more energy stored but NASA indicated that the oceans did not warm, so I am puzzled.Response: If you're referring to the argument that oceans are cooling, that's a short term cooling over the last few years which is not unusual over the last 30 years that has shown long term warming and a corresponding long term increase in hurricane intensity. -
Quietman at 06:40 AM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
that s/b warmer air (dropped the m), sorry. -
Quietman at 06:39 AM on 12 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
John I don't know but I would speculate that warer air and cooler seas would tend to intensify storms because of the increased temperature differential. Would not a smaller differential lead to less violent storms? -
Mizimi at 03:24 AM on 12 September 2008Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Dan: That suggests CO2 increase = Temp decrease; could it be the AGW's have got it back to front? (tongue firmly in cheek). But now of course it will be the sun ( no sunspots) whereas before it was NOT the sun. It's like pinning down mercury drops...the harder you try the more it splits up into smaller and smaller particles. I don't think anyone rejects that CO2 is a GG; but that is a whole different ballgame to suggesting it is causing global warming on a scale that we should be concerned with. -
Mizimi at 01:12 AM on 12 September 2008Temp record is unreliable
theTree: Check out Wikipedia: It is (guess)timated that around 14 terawatts of heat is released from the earth's core through tectonic/vulcanic activities, around the same amount of energy that we currently consume. Science is about facts, not opinions. Opinions are shaped by the kind of person you are and you will find a lot of people will deny facts because they do not fit 'their' model of reality. That's why we need science, not opinion, not emotional hype, not fear induced reactions to an un-proven hypothesis. Science enables us to respond rather than react. -
Mizimi at 01:03 AM on 12 September 2008It's the sun
The evolution of C4 plants happened around the Miocene/Pliocene interface when CO2 levels were lower than today and C4 plants began to develop.. C3 plants cannot cope with low CO2, they require 180 -220ppm for successful growth. Experiments indicate a 58% reduction in photosynthesis if the level is dropped from 380ppm to 150ppm and up to 90% reduction below 150ppm. C4 plants require a lower ppm value as they are 'more efficient': the first C4's were grasses. Before the appearance of grasses, most plants used phosphoglyceric acid (3 carbon atoms)to photosynthesise. Hence the name C3. Grasses, on the other hand, use oxaloacetic acid ( 4 carbon atoms) for photosynthesis, and are called C4 plants. As C4 plants were more efficient they began to dominate the planet creating vast eares of savannah and effectively locking up CO2. Thure Cerling has demonstrated that C4 plants "fixed" large volumes of CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and subsequently into the soil upon death. It is considered that this lowered the level of CO2 and thus GMT, resulting in the extinction of many of the large mammals. Keelings response to Becks paper: www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Response-Beck-by-R-Keeling-2.doc+keeling+beck&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk Beck reply: www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm -
Dan Pangburn at 16:31 PM on 11 September 2008Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
According to NOAA data (not their agenda-biased, thanks to Hansen, narrative reports), for the first 7 months of 2008 the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS LOWER than the average from 2000 thru 2007 by an amount equal to 13.5% of the total linearized increase during the 20th century. Since 2000, the CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL HAS INCREASED by 13.6% of the total increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution. -
Dan Pangburn at 16:08 PM on 11 September 2008CO2 lags temperature
Apparently climatologists do not have much grounding in how feedback works. Unaware of their ignorance, they invoke net positive feedback in their GCMs. This causes the GCMs to predict significant ‘enhanced global warming’. Anyone who has the ability and interest to look at the NOAA data from Vostok Ice Cores for the last glaciation (and prior glaciations) will discover that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. Graphs of NOAA and other credible data, all fully sourced so they can be verified, can be seen at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. (The web site is controlled by Middlebury, not me.) Those who understand how feedback works will know that this temperature trend reversal is not possible with significant net positive feedback. Thus, as far as global climate is concerned and contrary to the assumption in the GCMs, significant net positive feedback from water vapor does not exist. -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:07 PM on 11 September 2008Neptune is warming
Late thanks but well deserved for Dr. Foukal. That puts everything in perspective. -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:04 PM on 11 September 2008Mars is warming
Re-reading through this, I thought it would be worth pointing to a detail mentioned by Stanislav Lev. Mars is not really the closes planet to Earth. Although Mars happens to be very close at times, in average, Venus is closer. -
theTree at 18:35 PM on 10 September 2008Temp record is unreliable
Someone just suggested to me (from a book called 'Heat' I believe) that the earth has taken millions of years to store the potential energy of oil, gas, coal etc... and we're releasing it in a few hundred years so its bound to have an effect. Is this credible? How does this release compare to volcanic activity for instance? Opinions please! And apologies if this is the wrong thread for such a question. Just to tack another thought onto this: as people generally have an overriding opinion on AGW, do you think the multitude of factors and questions such as the one I've asked above are generally explained to support one's own 'overriding opinion'? And further, how many factors and questions would it take for someone educated in this field to 'change' their overriding opinion? I openly admit that I plead ignorance before I plead an opinion! The back and forth on this subject is dizzying. -
HealthySkeptic at 12:02 PM on 10 September 2008Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
Quietman, Forget that last question, I found it in your post #21. It's marvelous what you can find if you just look back far enough in the current thread. ;) -
HealthySkeptic at 12:00 PM on 10 September 2008Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
Quietman, I am unfamiliar with this research. Has there been any significant change in the number or magnitude of subduction zones, that could explain an increase in global temperature? Oh, and what is the exact name (or URL) of the "Volcano thread" I can't seem to locate it? -
HealthySkeptic at 11:53 AM on 10 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
John, Your article equates GW with AGW. Simply stating that 'global warming' is causing arctic sea ice to melt says nothing about the cause or nature of the warming. Based on all the evidence I have seen (including your article above) the jury is still out on whether the perceived arctic sea ice melt is natural or man-made... only time will tell. -
HealthySkeptic at 11:35 AM on 10 September 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
Quietman, Yes, sadly, I fear you are correct. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:24 AM on 10 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
You say Watts is data driven but you're not presenting any data. Watts is as biased as they come and also incompetent in time series analysis, the link I posted shows as much. To my knowledge, Watts is not a scientist but if you have a science publication of his to point to, I'll be glad to look it up. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/ I don't know what predictions you're referring to, what I recall reading from people who actually study ice was that a loss such as that of 07 was unlikely to be equalled. However, there was great unpredictability due to the loss of multi-year ice. Blog opinions and the like are not what I'd be looking at for this, perhaps that's what you're alluding to. Why not give links to these "consensus predictions"? The ice cover is larger than last year indeed, not by much and significantly lower than 2005, so it is the second lowest on record; I said that if you had data to dispute that fact I was all ears, that still stands. You're not offering data, just rethoric. The Links I posted above show Arctic and Antarctic sea ice anomalies. Arctic is down, Antarctic is flat. There is no statistically significant change of Antarctic sea ice in the satellite era observations. Once again, if you have data to dispute that, present it. http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ It shows very well which trend is "tiny", or non existent, and which one is "definite." As for pre satellite data, I understand why you don't want to go there, it shows a huge loss of Antarctic sea ice that would not help your case. Data here: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadisst/data/download.html The overlap period with satellite data shows excellent correlation, as shown here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/sea-ice-north-and-south-then-and-now/ "If gw is happening, shouldn't the Antarctic warm?" Interesting question. Why don't you try to find out? The answer is not exactly simple and involves the Southern Annular Mode, among other things. You are getting a little sloppy in the rethoric. It does not help your case either to remind that last year's loss was due to an extraordinary combination of weather factors. This year, the combination did not repeat, yet the ice loss is very close, indeed closer to 07 than to 05, which is 3rd lowest on record and already well below 79-00 average. It obviously means that an extraordinary combination of weather factors was not necessary for a very large loss to happen again. Other sloppy rethoric points are: The calling on Al Gore, which I do not recall ever mentioning in this discussion, or on this site (or ever? not sure). Link to one of my posts to correct me if I'm wrong, although it does not have anything to do with the subject. I don't care about Gore. The calling on "catastrophic" whatever, which I do not recall mentioning either. You are essentially trying to make a strawman using stuff that I never even approached. Looking at my posts here will clearly indicate that I am not into catatastrophism. Some people are, not me. I do think that GW can have quite serious consequences; that's different from predicting doom. My fears? Be more specific. I am defending, with an abundance of data, the point of view that the last 2 years' loss of Arctic sea ice have been significant, statistically and otherwise. The fact that the Northwest and Northeast passages have open water at the same time is quite significant. Where did I state a "fear?" That idea of "constriction" of ice is interesting. Have any pointer to a scientific source explaining the concept? -
Quietman at 04:14 AM on 10 September 2008The link between hurricanes and global warming
Interesting. Ned Potter did a blog at ABC News (US) that indicated this may have something to do with an eastward shift in their origin. I argued that the shift in origin was likely due to climate shift (climate change), meeting with much resistance by some because I indicated not AGW. It is a very interesting topic.Response: Elsner 2008 isn't just looking at particular region such as the North Atlantic but globally across all ocean basins. But it also begs the question, if warming sea temperatures are not lending more energy to hurricanes making them stronger, why not? -
Wondering Aloud at 23:10 PM on 9 September 2008It's the sun
Yeah I've been looking. I think we may be running headlong in the wrong direction. The satellite data that was supposed to prove a positive feedback from CO2 causing increased water vapor in fact show the opposite. I don't say we are certain but it is starting to look like there is no way CO2 can be a large climate driver. Coupled with the paleo record clearly saying it isn't... -
Wondering Aloud at 23:05 PM on 9 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Wow! Anthony Watts wasn't the source, just the reporter, and now he is unreliable? Never mind, objectivity has left the building. Being accurate and data driven now makes you "unreliable". Anyone who does not preach the "Gospel" of Al Gore must be crazed. As I said in the first place this year ice cover was more than last year. Which is clearly true despite the "consensus" predictions of a few months ago. We also know that last year had non GW reasons for being low, as John stated in the original post. Your assertion that the Antarctic shows no trend is very interesting. If the world is warming shouldn't the antarctic ice be shrinking? No trend? you have an interesting ability to call tiny trends definite if they support you and larger ones non existent when they don't. It is clearly colder in the Antarctic than 50 years ago. Further 2007 was a record high for Antarctic sea ice extent since satellite records began just as it was a record low in the North. Sorry, I forgot, nothing can possibly disprove or even argue against catastrophic global warming caused by CO2 it must remain forever unfalsifiable, Amen. Maybe we should discuss "all time" records that could not possibly be correlated, like pre and post satellite, and then we can lament the vanishing polar bear. Occams razor is slicing this issue to ribbons. As for circumnavigating the pole in open water I suggest you go ahead and try it, start today. It won't prove anything the constriction of the polar sea is the reason ice can survive summer up there. But, I think it would calm your fears very quickly. -
HealthySkeptic at 14:29 PM on 9 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
koyaanisqatsi, In #198, you said;- "So try http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm to sort through what Prof. Segalstad did say and what he meant when he said it. Why should others have to do your literature search for you?" LOL! Nothing in the link you provided contradicts my original point, which was that Tom Segalstad is a well respected scientist, and one who has left the IPCC because he simply doesn't believe that their "science" is correct. If you think that I have misrepresented "what Prof. Segalstad did say and what he meant when he said it", please feel free to show me how. In the light of this, your throw-away line; "Why should others have to do your literature search for you?", is both childish and offensive. -
Quietman at 12:57 PM on 9 September 2008Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
Mizimi Yes, we know from past plate positions how placement changes climate (in general) because of equatorial storm formation and large land mass desertification. I think Palaeos.com covers that issue. What the current article is about is somewhat different. It's about heat exchange at subduction zones, an issue that I have been arguing for about a year now. -
Quietman at 12:48 PM on 9 September 2008It's the sun
Pep I just finished reading the short version Beck draft. What did you find objectionable? Mizimi What web site are they posting this argument on? -
Quietman at 12:32 PM on 9 September 2008It's the sun
sorry, my s key must be sticking in the up position. -
Quietman at 12:31 PM on 9 September 2008It's the sun
WA I agree. BTW Have you had a chance to view any of the articles that I linked to on the volcanos thread? Every time I look for newer articles I run across another one on climate sensitivity to something or another. Spencer says it lower to CO2, Kay says it higher for TSI and the last article I posted a link to in volcanos says it's plate tectonics. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:52 AM on 9 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Anthony Watts as a reliable source? Please. Go for what they have there if you want, I have formed my opinion on Watts and his site and have not yet seen reason to change it. Watts' blog is by no mean a place to start on anything. Saying that there is an Arctic ice increase this year when last year's loss was staggering is profoundly misleading. It's like saying that you're getting plenty of food if you're eating an apple per day after a week of total fasting. EVEN IF it is 10% more than last year, that would make it a 17% departure from the 79-00 average and 2nd lowest on record. As I said earlier, that would include all records, not only satellite. If you have real data to dispute that, I'm all ears. -
Wondering Aloud at 07:19 AM on 9 September 2008It's the sun
A theory must do two things it must explain what has been observed and it must be useful to predict the result of future experiments. A theory that fails in either way is discarded. In both cases the AGW by CO2 hypothesis has some big trouble. Please don't try to make it a theory. We need it to be much better, but I don't know if it needs to be discarded. -
Wondering Aloud at 06:09 AM on 9 September 2008April update on global cooling 2008
So where is the September update? I predicted a double bump... looks like I was right. Yes it was a WAG... my future predictions have exactly no predictive value.
Prev 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 Next
