Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 Next
Comments 131201 to 131250:
-
Mizimi at 05:02 AM on 9 September 2008Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
QM: Yes, another thread I am pursuing ( when time allows!!)is any correlation between tectonic plate movements and global temps due to land distribution; It seems clear to me that the Nhemisphere land mass has a big influence on several factors affecting GMT. -
Mizimi at 04:54 AM on 9 September 2008It's the sun
R. Keeling has posted a rebuttal and Beck has posted a reply so the debate has begun. -
Wondering Aloud at 03:53 AM on 9 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Well I can't find it right now, here is a place to start though they are debating over weather the increase is 10% or 30% and it looks like it is coming in a little higher than the 10%. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Extent -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:37 AM on 9 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
You can doubt or believe whatever about significance, that has no bearing on facts. It is a fact that, if not for the landmass of Greenland, you could circumnavigate the pole in open water above the Arctic circle as we write this. You need to cite a source for that 13% figure and say what it represents. I look at ice extent, monitored by NSIDC: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ The 08 minimum has not happened yet, so citing your unsupported, unexplained 13% as if it was already recorded is misleading. It's kinda strange that you repeat that same number from several days ago, although the 08 extent has decreased in the meantime. You'd have to show me the maths demonstrating that this and last year's loss of Arctic sea ice are not statistically significant and that Antarctic sea ice is actually outside of range. Why don't we look at these graphs: http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ I note that they're not exactly on the same scale because if they were, the Arctic one would end way outside of the graph. The Antarctic, however, shows no particular trend. Also you need to say which way you want to have it: the 07 Antarctic "record" is a satellite era record only, which does not seem to bother you when it's in the southern hemisphere. However, you emphasize the satellite observation time span about the Arctic, even though the 07 low is lower than any other observation ever, including non satellite. For those interested, more info on that here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/sea-ice-north-and-south-then-and-now/ The links I gave above contain more detailed maths about the Arctic vs Antarctic subject: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/denial/ It is from last year but is just as applicable this year. If you find that time series analysis faulty, by all means explain why it is so. -
Wondering Aloud at 23:59 PM on 8 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Try not to lose it Phillipe. We saw predictions given with great certainty that 2008 was going to set all time records for arctic sea ice loss. Never mind "all time" is only 30 years. It didn't happen and only some last minute current effects got it close. this year was 13% higher sea ice cover at minimum than last. I doubt it has any significance, just like last year didn't. If you are unaware that the antarctic remains cold and that sea ice around the antarctic is at near record levels you'd best broaden your filters. Ice shelfs are supposed to break off, it might matter if it happened far more than usual (if we knew what was usual) or if it had no other explanation like volcanism upstream, but since that is not the case in the antarctic... Meanwhile despite polar bear populations also being at unprecedented highs, the World Wildlife Fund runs a series of scare adds about vanishing polar bears. -
Quietman at 17:12 PM on 8 September 2008Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
HealthySkeptic It depends on how old they are and how healthy. They will die claiming AGW even if they are crushed by glaciers. -
Quietman at 17:07 PM on 8 September 2008Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
Mizimi The oceans also receive and store heat from the earth. See the link to plate tectonics in Volcano thread. -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:05 PM on 8 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Koyaanisqatsi (tough screen name, really), no reason to google when you can get the info from the horse's mouth: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/langswitch_lang/in The featured link to Science unfortunately is not part of the free content, so you'd need subscription to see it. It's also worth looking at the credentials of the contributors. You can look these up too: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7098/full/442009a.html http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science--technology-web-a-2005-10-03&page=2 EMS provides only web hosting to the site. Real Climate states clearly it is by no means affiliated to EMS. None of the contributors receives any kind of financial compensation from EMS or any other source. They are all working scientists employed by a variety of agencies and universities and run the site on their spare time. Here is EMS' site: http://www.sciencecommunicationnetwork.org/ -
Mizimi at 05:00 AM on 8 September 2008There's no empirical evidence
Well, Beck's analysis seems to disprove the base line data used to start the whole issue, so what does that do for the AGW theory?? http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf Even if you put a higher anomaly factor in than Beck, you still end uf with substantially higher CO2 figures than were used to construct the AGW argument. It will be interesting to see the responses ..... -
Mizimi at 04:51 AM on 8 September 2008Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
I wish people would stop using emotively biased language instead of 'scientific' language. Water vapour does NOT amplify anything. It simply acts as a buffer, storing heat and releasing it according to well known physical processes. GG's do NOT 'force' anything : that implies they have some inherent power...which they don't. They moderate heat loss through buffering IR. -
Quietman at 03:56 AM on 8 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
PS Another site, listed as neutral at the above linked site is Title of Link Opposing Views, that has a Yes and a No column and rates the accuracy. -
Quietman at 03:46 AM on 8 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
koyaanisqatsi Re: "If in doubt, I Google on the organization, the articles authors, etc." I do that when in doubt as well. I agree Climate Skeptics is somewhat unreliable as they are too one sided. I do read at Climate Debate Daily becasue they catagorize the articles into pro and con columns and I can find both good and bad articles in both columns (much prefeable to all bad). PS Google "Real Climate" for authors and funding. -
Quietman at 03:34 AM on 8 September 2008It's the sun
Mizimi In rural America, coal and wood still warm many homes, albeit the systems have become somewhat more sophisticated than they were when I was growing up. I would like to use a windmill here but they are quite expensive. I'm waiting for the prices to come down. -
Quietman at 03:28 AM on 8 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe They also have a newer sister site, Palaeos.org which is a wiki site, but it lacks the humor of Palaeos.com and that's one of the attributes that I like. -
Mizimi at 02:53 AM on 8 September 2008It's the sun
The Biomind.de site contains the full extract; the other is an abstract of the pertinent findings. One possible way to check 'accuracy' is to check out the annual coal tonnages around the 1850-1960 periods as oil did not supplant coal until after this period. I rather suspect (!!)a surprise, especially since coal-burning appliances were notoriously inefficient in those times. Equally ...how much wood was burnt during this period? rather a lot I think, and in very inefficient ways. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:14 AM on 8 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Thanks for the Palaeos link, Quietman, great site. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:12 AM on 8 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Koyaanisqatsi, curves are fudged with A LOT on so-called skeptic web sites. Example, icecap.org, ran by Joe D'Aleo. Check out how his "analysis" is analyzed by a real mathematician here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/ Of course, there is the always funny Anthony Watts. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/ Look at the comments thread, it is enlighting as to how Watts handled the all thing. Last year I lost count of how many of those sites were attempting to convince readers that the opening of the Amundsen Northwest passage was not remarkable. They were not even arguing the significance of it, simply trying to misrepresent what was happening. WA's post above is typical of a common argument trying to suggest that the loss of Arctic sea ice (very significant since 05) is compensated by the increase of Antarctic sea ice (not statistically significant). The amount of pure and simple deception on so-called skeptic sites is MASSIVE. The other thing they like a lot is conspiracy BS and accusations of fraud against all scientists whose conclusions they dislike. A case in point was the outcry for J. Hansen to release GISSTEMP code, which was done but has led nowhere, as you could expect. Although I do not look much at environmentalist's sites on GW, I gather that there is a lot of exaggeration there on many aspects. One especially annoying one is the relation between hurricane activity and warming. So far, the only thing that can be reasonably asserted is that warmer SSTs do lead to faster intensification of storms. Everything else is debatable. Nevertheless, what I have seen from "skeptics," their double standard of scrutiny for liked vs. disliked hypotheses and the similarity of their methods to that of the tobacco industry led me to be very skeptical of the skeptics. -
Lee Grable at 19:13 PM on 7 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman, I don't look for who's right wing or left wing , I look for who's lying and who's not. 100% of the time, it's the right wing and the deniers that lie. And you still haven't addressed the specific points I've made or the references I've provided. Another denier tactic. Please explain the difference between the graph on the petition project website and the graph on this website. And tell me which one you give credibility to. Should be simple, yes? -
PT_Goodman at 15:33 PM on 7 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
I don't seem to have much problem identifying which are right wing and which are left wing sites. It's usually, not always, fairly obvious. If in doubt, I Google on the organization, the articles authors, etc. The truth is out there. I agree...best to read what they say and decide if it adds up to crap or crackerjacks. I'm not familiar with Friends of Science and their server is not responding right now. I mention Climate Skeptics because I realized I was reading mostly GW environmentalist materials and web sites. So I thought I'd engage the so-called Climate Skeptics in a healthy debate. What was I thinking? I was savagely attacked for simply asking why they applied a curve to UAH satellite and said I felt a straight line filtered out the noise better (as is done here, I think). A 5-th order least squares polynomial curve was used, although it took me a long time to get that information. It actually looks as though that curve was fudged a bit to make it appear as if global temperatures had dropped during the period just before the satellite data and at the end of the satellite data (2007, I believe). Very odd. I persevered a bit, but most replies to my ?s were of the "if you knew anything about science, you'd..." variety. So much for debate. There are honest GW/AGW skeptics or deniers out there...I am certain of that. Well-intentioned skepticism is essential to scientific debate. It keeps us all honest and forces us to think and rethink the science. -
Quietman at 14:50 PM on 7 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
PS What do you think about the Friends of Science website? -
Quietman at 14:46 PM on 7 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
koyaanisqatsi I agree completely. My problem has been discerning who is right and left wing so I look for key words just like when I am involved in an argument with a creationist (but the key words are different of course). If a political party or name is used, the words "global warming" rather than "climate change" or "climate shift", or obvious falsehoods (the opposite of something that I know as fact, albeit I am limited there somewhat) and with creationists it's "scripture" and for I.D. it's "validate" or the third law of thermodynamics. But some sites that are claimed neutral are actually quite biased and sites that are called denier sites by alarmists sometimes are neutral or just anti-alarmist, so it's difficult to tell. So I read what they say and then decide if it's crap or not. -
Quietman at 14:33 PM on 7 September 2008It's the sun
Pep Actually I have not read it yet and I don't know if its the same as what Mizimi read but I will take a look at both links later. -
PT_Goodman at 14:31 PM on 7 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman, Thanks for the link. That's a useful web site. All the article does is urge caution and suggest the most extreme predictions of global sea level rise are unlikely. Emphasis on "unlikely". The authors wisely avoid the use of the word "impossible", but then they are scientists. The fact is we don't really know quite what to expect with any certainty...but you and I already understand that. Where you can get into real trouble is reading and believing nonsense at right and left wing blogs. Usually they get things completely wrong, although I confess I hold right wing blogs most accountable for outright deception. Gore has been accused of being an alarmist, but so many of his claims have turned out to be about right. For years, even before it was mentioned in the press, I was concerned about our climate being in an roughly unstable or meta-stable climate equilibrium. Once the "tipping point", if there is one, is reached, it may not matter what we do to try to correct the problem. That is still a concern. As an example of unhealthy GW or AGW denial, try: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/ -
Pep at 09:20 AM on 7 September 2008It's the sun
I would take 180 years with a grain of salt. http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf :) welcome -
Quietman at 09:08 AM on 7 September 2008It's the sun
Pep That was an interesting read, even if it was a draft copy. I found the sections on ENSO and other ocean oscillations particularly of interest. Thank you. -
Quietman at 06:30 AM on 7 September 2008Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
Mizimi Overall I agree with you. There are even a few species that I would like to see just go away. But as a naturalist I can and do appreciate all species, living and extinct. I just think that extinction is natural and evolution must take it's course. Non-human hominid species for example have been declining since man first evolved. It's not mans intent, it's just nature. Yes, many of the more primitive cultures simply see them as food. Even more primitive cultures see us as food. There are no simple answers or solutions. -
Quietman at 06:20 AM on 7 September 2008Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
Some food for thought on this subject: Global Warming And Evolution In The Amazon "The results of a new study suggest that past climate changes and sea level fluctuations may have promoted the formation of new species in the Amazon region of South America." -
Quietman at 06:12 AM on 7 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
As an example of alarmism and what scientists really think, take a look at this article at Scientific Blogging. -
Quietman at 05:34 AM on 7 September 2008Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
John Well written. I like this one much better than the original. -
Quietman at 05:27 AM on 7 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
koyaanisqatsi PS AGW alarmists talk about the end of life, the other talk about the end of civilization. The damage will be done if we pay too much attention to either. Skeptical examination of both arguments should lead to a realization close to the truth so I suggest keeping an open mind. -
Quietman at 05:21 AM on 7 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
koyaanisqatsi I am not a professional any longer, I am retired. My lifelong interest is paleontology and I am a continuing student in that field (I bought my retirement home because of the rock on the property, you cant walk without stepping on fossils). So I do also study paleoclimates and that is why I come to this site. When I did work it was in engineering research. Specifically automotive engineering, specialized in engine and emissions. So my work the measurements of all things mechanical, climatatic and gaseous in the interest of improving product and self policing to maintain federal compliance, both in the lab and in the field. Truth is something that we search for, honesty is an attitude. If you read my recent statements in the solar thread I think it clarifies my points fairly well. -
Quietman at 05:21 AM on 7 September 2008It's the sun
Here is the "180_years" PDF. -
Pep at 21:23 PM on 6 September 2008It's the sun
Millions tons of SO2 in the stratosphere, Mt. Pinatubo was a great example. Now it’s overestimated or was. The scare tactic is dying. -
Mizimi at 21:18 PM on 6 September 2008Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
Back to the post: We simply have not studied life for long enough to be able to state categorically how it responds to rapid environmental changes ( a bit like climate!!) We do know there were massive and rapid changes in the past that life coped with..the so called extinction events. Down but not out. Species evolve/adapt to fill niches: over time that niche alters and if the organism cannot adapt to those changes (whatever the cause) then it dies out because it can no longer compete in that niche.. This is part of the process however much we may dislike it. Species, by adapting to niches are risking extiction by becoming more and more specialised, yet, with the possible exception of man, this is what all species do. We should therefore expect to see species decline as a natural part of the overall process. Our effect on local environments may accelerate matters and give certain species a greater problem than they would otherwise have had, but that is part of the 'risk factor' of life itself. The underlying issue here is what kind of natural world do we want and what are we prepared to give up in order to achieve it? And the answer to that question depends entirely on your perspective. If you posit that the 'purpose' of evolutionary processes is to produce a species that is capable of adapting to any kind of environment then the logical culmination of that is a species that can colonise ALL possible habitats...including other planets. Only man has that potential through his technology. If in the process of achieving that goal, the earth is radically impoverished ( from a humanistic viewpoint) does that matter in the overall scheme? -
Mizimi at 20:52 PM on 6 September 2008Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
QM: Humans like quick fixes; they can then forget that problem and move onto the next one ( whatever it might be). Clearly trees played a big role in sequestering CO2 in the past ( that's how we got coal) so the quick fix is plant more trees and this also has the benefit of increasing habitat space. Unfortunately, many schemes ( such as propagated by the UK Forestry Commission)are monocultural...one genus such as pine is planted because it is fast growing and thus locks up CO2 rapidly. The short term effect seems good, but in the medium term the soil and local water table suffer dramatically. Studies in the US show up to 13% loss in stream flow within a short radius of plantations and increasing soil imbalance which eventually gives rise to salty soil. Both these effects are detrimental to bio-diversity. The answer is planting a wide mix of trees rather than monocultures....in other words just like Mother Nature did. -
Mizimi at 19:59 PM on 6 September 2008It's the sun
July 2008....report by Beck on 180 yrs of chemical CO2 analysis...showing previous values of CO2 from 1800'2 have been understated.....google "beck's 180 year analysis of CO2"....lots of info. -
PT_Goodman at 13:55 PM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman, I'm anti-alarmist as well, but I define an alarmist as someone who predicts the end of the world if we act to prevent AGW. If we fail to act to prevent AGW, these alarmists may be correct, whether we act to prevent AGW or not. I'm anti-fundamentalist, but on the fence as far as terrorism and communism. I fear unregulated capitalism. I'm an environmentalist (including GW and AGW) and conservationist...at least compared to most Americans. I'm from upstate NY where we believe in deception and never say what we mean. Sarcasm! New Yorkers think they have a monopoly on honestly and frankness, not to mention most other things. I'm from a small town--_do not_ buy into the "small town values" nonsense as our values are no better than yours. Darwin and evolution, yes. I think the ID people are a bit crazy. Charles Darwin's hypothesis is not a hypothesis. It's a given at this point. At least you say you state your views honestly, vs. truthfully. "Truthfully" implies infallibility which none of us should claim. Who likes like being called a liar? But if you lie, you will be caught! Finally, I'll say that I enjoyed my last three trips to NYC Broadway/E. 89-th St area immensely, and much to my surprise. NOW, we can talk. BTW, I thought I saw you mention involvement in SAE someplace and was curious as to what work or interests brought involvement that about. As for me, my degree is in Math/Physics (joint major), with a course in Climatology and Atmospheric Physics (all that education from the 1970s), some work in the field of Air Quality Modeling and 18 years as a Senior Programmer/Project Manager at a driving simulator used for safety research. Unemployed now and, perhaps, for good. So, I'm trying to catch up on science issues and trying to avoid the cursed Dunning-Kruger effect. That's me in a nutshell. -
PT_Goodman at 08:35 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
HealthySkeptic, Regarding your comment at #184, I did read the article at the link provided. It's the article and Noel Sheppard that I dismiss. His first statement is pure hyperbole and should be dismissed: "With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science." Really? If true, there would be no IPCC scientists left that were not skeptics. The reader of the article, if they even care, will have a difficult time separating Sheppard's comments about what the IPCC said from what the IPCC actually did say (or write). I have every reason to doubt Sheppard's motives in writing such an article. I assume that whatever Tom V. Segalstad said was said in good faith. But his comments have been taken out of context and put in Sheppard's context (filtered by Lawrence Solomon, it turns out). Reread the article and tell me definitely who wrote what...much of the text is Sheppard's but is indented (but w/o quotes) to appear as if said or wrote by the IPCC. Some of the text appears in quotes after the indented text and is probably Segalstad's own words, but proceeded by Sheppard's comments. The writing style confusion is intended. OK, rereading the Sheppard(just a small business owner), he's simply restating much of Lawrence Solomon's Canadian Nation Post (Financial Post) article. It's not clear where Solomon got his Segalstad quotes. Did he interview Segalstad? He doesn't really say. Solomon is just a journalist. 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? Like I said, don't rely on NewsBusters.org. Go to the source. -
Quietman at 07:45 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
PPS My field also has research papers. The SAE has it's own journal and annually publish the collection in hard cover for reference. The difference is that in the private sector many of us can not publish the results of research as the knowledge gained is deemed proprietary. Hence, when I was working I had to publish any articles under an alias and be very careful not to reveal any company secrets. -
Quietman at 07:38 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
PS Generally, anywhere you find a mountain range you will also find a fault line or a subduction zone. The other place to look is major rivers as they often follow a fault that has rifted. -
Quietman at 07:34 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
I left out the "and" between why and where, sorry. -
Quietman at 07:32 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Philippe As usual I agree with much that you say. But If you check out the paleomaps at Palaeos.com you can readily see the plates that make up Antarctica. If you follow the last link I placed in the Volcanos thread it explains why where the Antarctic heat is generated. PS The need to defend Darwin and the ToE in general is precisely that the educational system itself is under attack by fundamentalists. If they get their way science education will be even worse than it has been since the 1960s when the standards were lowered. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:10 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Dunno what earthquake you're talking about. There was one in West A. in August, after the July WIS collapse. There was one in July, around 5 magnitude and very, very far away. http://www.gdacs.org Enough blogging, I have real stuff to do. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:33 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
You statement that Antarctica is not one plate is inaccurate. It is one very large plate, with boundaries with the Pacific, Nazca, Scotia, African and Indo-Australian plates. -
Mizimi at 05:32 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
So the sudden drop in sea ice in 2007 was due to weather conditions, not climate change ( excepting weather is the end product of the climate process). How many times do we need to remind ourselves "one swallow does not a summer make"? Sea ice is a part of the negative feedback system that keeps climate (reasonably) stable. Melting requires heat (334J/gm if I remember rightly)and this mostly affects local sea temperature. It also keeps plankton et al very happy and bloomimg nicely, (they like it cool)which is good because they lock up a bit more CO2 and the food chain speeds up. -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:23 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Quietman, the recent break up is only part of the story. WIS lost 425square km to melting in Feb-March this year. It is the subject of much research that, to my knowledge does not mention seismic earthquakes as a significant factor. Other ice shelves that have collapsed include Wordie, Mueller, Jones, Larsen A and B. All earthquakes? In the years leading to its collapse, LarsenB lost 18 meters of ice to melting from the bottom. Ice shelves collapse as a result of a process, not a single event. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;271/5250/788 http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/2/341/2008/tcd-2-341-2008.pdf http://www.phys.uu.nl/~broeke/home_files/MB_pubs_pdf/2005_vdB_GRL.pdf -
Mizimi at 05:15 AM on 6 September 2008It's Urban Heat Island effect
Oh, silly me....it's the anomaly, not actual temps....but the colour scheme IS dramatic isn't it? All those reds and oranges really catch your eye and make it LOOK hot... There are several sites dealing with Use of Colour to Alter Phsycological Perception and Mind States. Red is associated with danger/alarm/anger/hostility and generates an internal need TO DO SOMETHING. Now, if they had used blue, green, indigo............ -
Mizimi at 04:51 AM on 6 September 2008Antarctica is gaining ice
"NASA Finds VAST Regions of West Antarctica Melted in Recent Past 05.15.07 A team of NASA and university scientists has found clear evidence that EXTENSIVE areas of snow melted in west Antarctica in January 2005 in response to WARM TEMPERATURES. This was the first WIDESPREAD Antarctic melting ever detected with NASA's QuikScat satellite and the MOST SIGNIFICANT MELT observed using satellites during the past three decades. Combined, the affected regions encompassed an area as big as CALIFORNIA." My caps. - just look at the map and tell me the use of those words is justified. The ACTUAL area involved is a FRACTION of the ice sheets, even the IPCC reckon it would take over 1000yrs to melt if the worst of their predictions materialised. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:39 AM on 6 September 2008Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
Reality is the only test and is what defends Darwin now better than anything. It does not matter to Darwin (who is dead) or to reality that armies of superstitious people attack evolution, its validity stands regardless. It matters to us because of the social implications of having irrational superstitious people designing school curricula and shaping policies. It's not Darwin or evolution that needs to be defended, it's ourselves, really. By the way, the immense majority (which is not saying much) of creationism or I.D. "scientific" stuff out there is non published, why do you think that is? Working in the private sector and not having to peer-review your work does not mean the work is better or more interesting. Most of it is so specialized in a given area of application that it would not be of great interest to a science journal, except a specialized journal on that particular area; there are plenty of those and private sector scientists publish more than you describe. However, when they see that they're on to something really interesting, guess what, they publish in a major journal. It happens a lot in chemistry and pharmacological research. It happened to Penzias and Wilson, and many others. Peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient condition. It is a minimum and by no means a guarantee of validity, but scientists know the value of it for both personal recognition and fostering of their field. Newton waited years to publish his gravitation work because he did not have all the data to make an iron clad case (even at that, Mercury was still a bother). As hard as he believed in a unified theory, Einstein could not publish on it and he did not try. As uncomfortable as he was with Quantum (on which he was perfectly fluent), he did not question the validity of the theory itself either and had major publications on it. When scientists believe that they really have an insight into reality but can't back it up solidly, they write a book, or an op-ed, or whatever. The insight might be perfectly valid, or not. When they have the full deal, they publish. By the way, it's not because a researcher is "respected" that he can't be wrong or somewhat nuts. Newton is a case in point with his obsession with Alchemy. Spencer's published work is interesting and does not do that much to question the acquired knowledge of climate science to date. What transpires of it in press releases or in the right wing media is another story. His non peer-reviewed work is not published because it would not pass review and for good reasons. By the way, peer-review abuse swings both ways, i.e. the Soon-Baliunas fiasco. Spencer and Christy encouraged politically motivated use of data that they knew to be erroneous for years, and did not correct their work, leaving that task to others. Trust Spencer more if you want, but don't try to convince me I should. -
Mizimi at 04:27 AM on 6 September 2008Models are unreliable
QM: The earth-moon barycentre is around 1700km BENEATH our crust..so the tidal effect of the moon/sun would 'stir up' the lower mantle...presumably a very low frequency effect....and increase surface volcanic activity??
Prev 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 Next
