Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 Next
Comments 131251 to 131300:
-
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. -
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.
Prev 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 Next
