Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 Next
Comments 49001 to 49050:
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:51 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"...the only explanation which adds up (har!) is the energy accumulating in the Earth system due to the GHG-caused radiative imbalance at top-of-atmosphere"
Solar accumulation theory by the oceanic heat sink is another explanation. See Dr David Stockwell's documentation of it.
>"As far as I am aware, the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases - even on the oceans - is that it slows down energy transfer out of the system."
You're subscribing to the Minnett solar accumulation - GHG isulation effect. As I've noted, that is not the subject of my questions. I'm questioning the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf GHG => ocean heat transfer process.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:41 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"Richard - we have been over this many times before on other blogs"
We have been over the Minnett solar accumulation - GHG insulation efffect. We have not been over the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf GHG => ocean heat transfer process. They are quite different, the latter rather more radical (going against the prevailing thermal gradient) and taking precedence lately hence my questioning of it.
I note Stefan Rahmstorf said the same as in my 2013 quote in the 2010 BBC documentary 'Earth Under Water". I'm curioius as to why that process is talked about as scientific fact when there's a paucity of documentation for it.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:26 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
My response at The Oregonian,
Moderator Response: [RH] hot linked url. -
Martin Lack at 05:50 AM on 6 February 2013We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
"The activity of the sun can be assessed by looking at proxies... One of these is the formation of the radioactive isotope Carbon-14 in the atmosphere... By measuring carbon-14 in tree rings... we can estimate how active the sun was at the time."
Can you please clarify if so-called skeptics do this? If they rely on proxy data to establish history of solar activity, how can they reject it (proxy data) for temperature?
-
Jonas at 04:20 AM on 6 February 2013Icy contenders weigh in
I donated to http://darksnowproject.org/ even before the research article on the importance weighting between Greenland and Antarctica melting became known: it's important to know if humanity can buy some time by reducing industrial soot and combatting wildfires more fiercly.
-
Daniel Bailey at 04:01 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
The most concise response to that, KR, is
"All The Way"
-
New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Considering the title of the latest paper,
Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation
I would have to say that the current response in the denial blogosphere is simply recursive. I wonder how deep, how many iterations, they are going to go?
-
New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
hank_ - I've read the new Lewandowsky, Cook, et al paper (pre-copy edited), I've looked over the comments at WUWT, and I have to say that the reaction to the new paper only supports the conclusions, that:
The overall pattern of the blogosphere's response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science...
(Emphasis added)
They just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. Rather astounding, actually, in terms of the lack of self-perception displayed in stacked conspiracy theorization, claims of persecution, and fact-free claims that their critics somehow Must Be Wrong.
The denialists are incredibly in need of a good mirror. But they would likely refuse to look at it, or claim that the image on it was painted by the Illuminati...
-
Eric Grimsrud at 03:24 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Hank, I would like to weigh in at WUWT as you suggest, but Watts has a long list of professional scientists who are now blocked out of his SHOW and I am on it. As my story reveals (see it at ericgrmsrud.wordpress,com, November archives), Mr. Watts has moved way beyond any pretense of discussing real science. If he lets you in, please tell him that quickly before he kicks you our also. Eric
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:23 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
It's really hard to avoid going off the rails when you have a one-track mind...
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:14 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
They are all welcome to take their concerns directly to the source: Stephan has a post up on the paper on his blog, here:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html
Being civilized people interested in getting the science right, I'm sure that will be their next step...
...any day now. Aannnyyy day... (-whistles, aimlessly-)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:59 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Went over and read the comments. Lots of complaining and ad hom (starting with Tony's opening sentence) but I don't see that anyone there has yet made a substantive statement. It's more like the Keystone Cops all running around bumping into each other.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:48 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Hank... They go off the rails regardless of what we or anyone else says. Not quite sure they were ever on the rails in the first place.
-
hank_ at 02:35 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Just a heads-up guys; SKS is being crucified over at WUWT (and other blogs) regarding Lewandowski and Cook's new paper(?). You may want to get out in front of this one before it goes off the rails!
H
Response: [JC] Actually Hank, what WUWT is doing is repeating all the same conspiracy theories we outline in our Recursive Fury paper. WUWT is proof of concept. I suggest reading our paper, then reread the WUWT post to gain a keener insight into the mindset over there. -
Eric Grimsrud at 02:20 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
For any party interested in this topic, I will call attention here to a "short course" on climate change that I have also created on my website, ericgrimsrud.com. It contains numerous power point slides along with narration. It is the result of numerous presentations I have given to various university and lay public organizations in Montana and the Northwest. It is presently in a first draft form to be continuously fine-tuned. Please provide feedback, if you wish, to ericgrimsrud@gmail.com. Thanks
-
johnenglander at 01:15 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
This is great. I wholeheartedly agree. More facts and intelligent points are not going to make the difference. We have enough information about climate change. That was the basis of my new book, HIGH TIDE ON MAIN STREET. I use a simple case about sea level rise, based on solid geologic history to get people's attention, to explain unambiguously that we have entered a new era, that will slowly but surely move the shoreline inward century after century. It is too late to stop, but what we do now will slow or speed up the devastating effects. My presentations over the last three months show high levels of effectiveness. I have been told I stumbled on the pathway to get past our primitive reptilean brain, which acts as the gatekeeper to our sophisticated human neocortex. The trick is to get their attention with something important -- like a moving shoreline -- that does not scare them to panic, but gives them a way out, delivered in a calm voice. It works.
-
DSL at 00:53 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard (non-entity), this has been hashed out over at SoD ad nauseum.
If you are suggesting that DLR does not result in ocean warming, could you provide a mechanism that does account for the current warming trend of both oceans and lakes in the absence of a TSI trend strong enough to account for such warming? If DLR does not provide the at-skin thermal barrier theorized, then at night shallow lakes (<6m) should lose most of their daytime heat and become much colder than the local 10m trop temp, even on very warm nights. Does this occur?Help advance the science, by all means.
-
Composer99 at 00:34 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob Painting:
Assuming that you are referring to a debunking of Richard C's leading questions, those of us who've not seen his particular claims before would appreciate a link, especially if it involves cites & technical stuff (although there is always your article here on SkS). :)
However, for the layman (like me), I suspect the argument Richard C is making (but appears to conceal in questions) falls on one or more of three points:
(1) Richard C has made a definitional error with regards to heat/energy whereby what he is talking about is not what the people he attempts to rebut are talking about.
(2) First Law of Thermodynamics. The extra energy accumulating in the oceans has to come from somewhere - and the only explanation which adds up (har!) is the energy accumulating in the Earth system due to the GHG-caused radiative imbalance at top-of-atmosphere.
(3) Bass ackwardness. Richard C states in his question #1:
If say, 40 yr heat accumulation in the ocean (18x10^22 J approx) is not solar-sourced, but energy sourced from the atmosphere (low specific heat) from GHG energy entrapment and moved to the ocean (high specific heat) against the predominant thermal gradient [...]
As far as I am aware, the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases - even on the oceans - is that it slows down energy transfer out of the system. They don't warm because something else is adding extra energy. They warm because the extra energy can't escape as easily as before.
-
DSL at 00:03 AM on 6 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG, you did read the article, yes? Do you accept what de Freitas did? The Wegman affair is another example--perhaps the richest in irony. When we say "pal review," we don't mean getting one's friends to check one's math. We mean getting one's friends to pass one's work through the peer-review process with just a glance.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:59 PM on 5 February 2013Glaciers still shrinking in 2011, how have contrarians claimed the opposite?
"we have delayed the onset of the next glacial by who knows how much"
Scientists have looked into that. Per Tzedakis et al 2012:
“glacial inception would require CO2 concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv”
For reference, we are at about ~394 right now…and climbing, so we can be relatively sure the next glacial epoch won't be happening in our lifetimes.
• http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nature-geoscience-ice-age.pdf
But what about further down the road? What happens then? Per Dr Toby Tyrrell (Tyrrell 2007) of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton:"Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them.
The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."and
"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."
So no ice ages and no Arctic sea ice recovery the next million years...
• http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/141.full.pdf+html
Also covered by Stoat, here:
• http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/11/09/carbon-dioxide-our-salvation-from-a-future-ice-age/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Given the radiative imbalance at the TOA is still present and that CO2 levels are still increasing (and that human emissions are not ending anytime soon), it is reasonable to presume that the impacts of a warming planet will increasingly impact the most vulnerable aspects of our remaining cryosphere: the Arctic sea ice (a goner), the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
We are, through our own actions, effectively locking-in a world of another 8-12 meters SLR above present. Unless we can magically arrest our emissions and also initiate methods to draw-down atmospheric concentrations of CO2. -
Tom Curtis at 21:50 PM on 5 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG @1, in the early days of science, anyone recognized as able to contribute could ask to present a paper to a learned society, and would do so. Their paper would then be published in the societies proceedings. This system worked because there were so few scientists that, even with this all comers approach, any interested person could read all the new papers in a given year, at least for a given country. As the number of scientists grew, the system broke down and peer review was introduced. The need that peer review satisfied, and hence its purpose, was to restrict publication so far as was possible to those papers that were worth reading. Above all else, peer review is a mechanism to ensure that scientists are able to devote their attention to papers of merit. It is a mechanism for filtering out scientific spam.
A paper can have merit without being correct, or indeed, without being free from error. But it must be free from obvious error. Further, a paper can be without error and correct, and lack merit; either because the subject has been covered many time before and the paper adds nothing new, or because the question addressed by the paper is simply of no scientific interest.
The problem with pal review is that it subverts the system as a filter of scientific spam. Your pals may do you a favour in getting your publications up even though they think the paper is without merit. More troubling, if they are politically (or has happened, religiously motivated) they may conspire to ensure the publication of your paper because it says the right things, from their perspective, and without regard to the actual scientific merit of the paper. Certainly some creationist papers have been published by this means, and the evidence is fairly clear that papers that would not otherwise have been published, have been published by pal review simply on the basis that they are critical of the concensus.
IMO, that AGW deniers have so conspired is a tacit admission that their work lacks merit. Had they been confident of their works merit, they would have spurned pal review in favour of the genuine article. But they appear to have decided it was more important politically to have the various papers in press than that they should be good enough to go through the normal rigours of peer review. (Please note, there are some skeptical papers that have gone through normal peer review. Those papers deserve the same respect that any other paper that goes through peer review deserves.)
-
MartinG at 20:05 PM on 5 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
I think this is somewhat misleading. We dont use Peer Review in science to prove that what we write is correct. No peer reviewer can do that. No - what peer review is for is to ensure that the conclusions given in the paper are properly supported by the evidence presented. A peer reviewer cannot be expected to go behind the scenes to check from the raw data. ( I myself have published papers with errors which a peer review process did not detect). The point of publishing is to air your views and allow others, who may have different conclusions to refute your work. This is what scientific debate is all about. By polarizing peer review using words such as "pal review" we are missing the point. I see no problem in a "pal review" - thats just asking your friends to check your paper and ensure its based on sound logic. Let them publish thier stuff - and then others (opponents) can publish why they are mistaken. Lets keep the debate where it belongs - on the technical issues.
-
Rob Painting at 20:03 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard - we have been over this many times before on other blogs. I find it hard to believe you are suffering from anterograde amnesia.
-
Kevin C at 20:03 PM on 5 February 2013No warming in 16 years
Yes, it seems probably that the aerosol cooling effect has been increasing. Unfortunately the effect is geographically dependent and not well measured.
The point of the video is that at this point I don't think we can detect that effect in the instrumental temperature record with any confidence. (There's an update coming which will show a small change, but still in the noise range.)
-
Richard C (NZ) at 19:38 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Nuccitelli - "heat is accumulating in the Earth's climate system due to the increased greenhouse effect"
Skeptical Science blog (Nuccitelli et al, 2012) - "90% of global warming goes into the ocean"
Schmittner - "Most heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other gases added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans"
Rahmstorf - ”heat penetrates faster into the oceans in a warmer climate”
OK, so given the use of the word "heat" I assume that the process is convective/conductive sensible heat transfer (or maybe not - see below). This begs a few questions for the above-named to answer:-
1) If say, 40 yr heat accumulation in the ocean (18x10^22 J approx) is not solar-sourced, but energy sourced from the atmosphere (low specific heat) from GHG energy entrapment and moved to the ocean (high specific heat) against the predominant thermal gradient then there must be documentation of this process somewhere with accompanying thermodynamic calculations - what reference is there to this in scientific literature?
2)a) Given the amount of energy involved, someone must have noticed the transfer occurring at the ocean/atmosphere interface and measured the heat transfer in order to quantify it and therefore verify both the phenomenon and enable calibration of global climate models - what reference is there to this in scientific literature?
2)b) I note, possibly unfairly, that NASA's GISS ModelE wildly overestimates ocean heat uptake in the ARGO era - is it possible that the phenomenon has not been verified empirically and that particular model say (and maybe other models) is not configured realistically (i.e. no GCM V&V has been done re anthropogenic ocean heat uptake)?
3) If I've misconstrued the process and it is actually a radiative energy transfer process (or a radiative/sensible heat combination), what reference is available to spectroscopy studies of radiation/sea water interaction to support the contention?
I note a number of spectroscopic radiation/water studies e.g. Hale and Querry 1973 (1989 citations to date), indicate that such a process is highly unlikely in view of only about 10 microns penetration in the IR-C range of GHG emittance.
4)a) If the process subscribed to by climate scientists such as the above-named is valid and fully understood, why has the IPCC not actually detailed the process with citations of relevant literature?
4)b) I note IPCC AR4 was very vague about an anthropogenic ocean heating process, WGI TS.4.1:-
“Formal attribution studies now suggest that it is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed warming of the upper several hundred metres of the global ocean during the latter half of the 20th century {5.2, 9.5} ”
They only "suggest" and then it is only "likely", no process is found at 5.2 and 9.5. If AR5 WGI is unable to firm up validity of the above process and detail it with citations, what expectation can there be of credence being given to it by anyone using the report for policy purposes, or any purposes for that matter?
Note that the process as described above is not the GHG insulation effect of solar-sourced ocean energy accumulation proposed by Peter Minnett at Real Climate as a result of a single study by NIWA's MV Tangaroa i.e. Minnett's posited effect competes with the above as yet undocumented process (as far as I know) to provide a credible anthropogenically driven ocean heat accumulation mechanism neither of which have been adopted by the IPCC to date.
Cross posted at The Oregonian (Nuccitelli letter linked at SkS), Skeptical Science (Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian) and Climate Conversation Group (Open Threads, Ocean heat content). -
william5331 at 17:32 PM on 5 February 2013No warming in 16 years
As I understand it, aerosols include particulate matter. Over the past couple of weeks we have seen news about air pollution in China as they close down factories and limit automobiles in the capital. Today, Japan is complaining about the air pollution coming over from China. How much of the aerosol load which is wafted up into the atmosphere is from this source and do we have any information on whether the load of aerosols in the upper atmosphere has been increasing along with China's increased manufacturing. I have heard an estimate that if we stoped the production of all aerosols, we might have as much as a 20C rise in temperature. A sobering thought if China (and the rest of us) cleaned up our act. Was the temporary flattening of the temperature record following the 40's due to American air pollution which they then cleaned up,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm
-
Doug Hutcheson at 17:27 PM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
Paul D @ 31 I must admit to not having used Micro$oft Window$ for a long time, so I cannot comment on mouse gesture assignments. I am using Linux (Fedora 17) with a BlueTooth mouse having a central wheel and the default mouse behaviour in a web page under Firefox 18 is quite interesting:
Left and right buttons as you would expect.
Wheel forward and backward scrolls the page, as you would expect.
Pushing the wheel to the left is the same as clicking the browser Back button.
Pushing the wheel to the right is the same as clicking the browser Forward button.
Following your idea, I have just tried pressing the mouse wheel (ie: the middle button) while over a hyperlink and, as you said, the link opens in a new tab (thanks for the tip!).
-
william5331 at 16:41 PM on 5 February 2013Glaciers still shrinking in 2011, how have contrarians claimed the opposite?
Of course, the contrarians are correct. We are heading into a glacial. (they call it an ice age not realizing that we are in the middle of an ice age that has lasted about 2.5 million years so far). As soon as an interglacial establishes itself, various carbon sinks start to reduce atmospheric Carbon dioxide and we are on the way to another glacial. The only thing they miss is that we have delayed the onset of the next glacial by who knows how much and may well be headed for a period like the carboniferous. Nothing wrong with that if we hadn't evolved our civilizations during an unusually stable period of climate and put a large amount of infrastructure in harms way from rising sea level. Oh! and developed our agriculture to prosper in the present climate regime and allowed our population to rise to use up each advance in food production. Just wait until our climate lurches instead of creeping as we continue to push on the light switch. Thirty or fourty days of stored food and a few years with vast crop failures!! At what point in this sequence will the deniers become convinced. If they are like the creationists - possibly never.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/carbon-sinks.html
-
chriskoz at 16:33 PM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
Updated Comments Policy... link is now contains somewhat outdated:
HTML Tips section.
Especially, follow this advice link at the end of the page is really obsolete now.
I propose to rid of this relly obsolete stuff and also remove/reduce the
HTML Tips
section and place the link to this page instead.
-
dana1981 at 15:35 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Son of Krypton @7 - that's awesome, thanks for letting us know! Who's the professor in the climate modeling course?
-
Son of Krypton at 13:27 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Well Dana, thanks for taking the good fight to all possible mediums.
While off topic, you may be interested to learn it seems the SkS team has some fans among the faculty at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. Nuccitelli et al (2012) was referenced quite prominently today in a 4th year Climate Modeling course I am enrolled in, and the arguments page was referenced in a first year geography course for which I am a TA.
-
Son of Krypton at 12:08 PM on 5 February 2013Glaciers still shrinking in 2011, how have contrarians claimed the opposite?
@1 Elmo
Amen to that. Their logic seems to mimic a gem of a quote of Homer Simpson`s from some time ago
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
P.S. I like the new comments system -
dana1981 at 10:50 AM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
JasonB @5 - indeed, unfortunately they edited the letter prior to publication. The original version I sent them is in this blog post.
-
JasonB at 10:11 AM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
They may have published it, but unfortunately they removed "and the energy is equivalent to detonating four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second over the past 15 years", which is a very powerful image, and the link to SkS.
-
Composer99 at 08:00 AM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
For what it's worth the "bold" command in Basic mode publishes the way SkS handles the html strong tag.
If it could be revamped without too much effort, would it be possible to change it to publish the way SkS handles the html b tag? IMO the strong tag is disproportionately visually dominating, even taking into consideration that one is bolding the text to draw special attention to it or for special emphasis.
-
Composer99 at 07:55 AM on 5 February 2013Climate's changed before
pcrudy:
The comparison is quite accurate. Arguing that humans can't drive climate change now because humans didn't drive past climate change - in the face of basic physics, backed by empirical evidence, that they can and indeed are - is logically equivalent to arguing that humans can't cause brush fires because they didn't in the past.
The scale of the behaviour being argued is not pertinent.
-
dhogaza at 07:47 AM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
The Oregonian give Gordon Fulk op-ed space about once a year, and his various op-eds are pretty much interchangeable. Usually his responses are timed to appear after something major, such as (in this case) Obama's mention of climate change in his inaugural speech.
Over the last year, the Oregonian has also been publishing editorials pushing back on various proposals to limit CO2 emissions in the state. They've not gone full-blown denialist, but there has been a subtle change.
-
monkeyorchid at 05:52 AM on 5 February 2013Lessons From Past Predictions: Ridley vs. IPCC and Hansen
Worryingly, Ridley is also on the advisory council of Sense About Science (http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/advisory-council.html), along with at least one other climate denier (Tony Trewavas). Might explain why SAS has been seems to have been very quiet about climate disinformation.
-
philipm at 05:26 AM on 5 February 2013Introducing Climate Change Science to College Students
It’s good to see more books surfacing. When I wanted to read up on the subject, it was pretty much sites like this, realclimate and the academic literature. Raypierre’s Principles of Planetary Climate is good for physics grads (even one like me who didn’t do particularly well, I’m more at home in Computer Science), but more acessible texts are a really useful addition.
It is BTW a tad unfair to depict an ostrich with its head literally in the sand. They don’t actually do that, though they are in most respects almost as unintelligent as a science denier.
-
philipm at 05:16 AM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
I meant <sub> tags, but it eats the others too…
-
philipm at 04:05 AM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
The animated graph is brilliant. I posed a link to the YouTube on Facebook.
Something not often talked about is the implications of 90% of the increased planetary energy going into the oceans for the potential scale of a big El Niño. Has anyone modelled that? Can we expect another spike above the average as big as 1998, or would it be even bigger?
@vroomie: agree on the editor. I can now type CO2, without all the tags. Over at realclimate, their editor eats <sup> tags.
-
vrooomie at 03:53 AM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
It is these kind of "duels" that will become increasingly frequent and bitter, as reality and the facts close in on climate misinformers. The laws of the jungle, vis-a-vis a cornered animal, are *going to* apply, and we who operate in the confines of an evidence-based world must be prepared to front these battles. Tiring, but, the stakes are worth it.
To the Mods: LOVE the WYSIWYG editor...a great inprovement!
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:25 AM on 5 February 2013Climate's changed before
pcrudy... It's actually a very apt comparison. It's shown over and over in published research that CO2 is the "Biggest Control Knob" (as Dr Richard Alley puts it) for global climate change.
Essentially, what humans are doing is taking that knob, that naturally modulates, and we're turning it rapidly in the warming direction. So, saying that natural climate change precludes humans being able to change climate is fundamentally wrong. And that is the point of the statement.
-
Paul D at 02:47 AM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
Doug H
In Windows 7 I think using the middle button to click on a link, opens a new tab with the page in IE8.I don't think the middle-button in Windows XP has a specific function does it?
You have to use something like MS IntelliPoint to assign a function or action to it. -
Kevin C at 02:19 AM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
On firefox 18 under Linux I'm getting a popup for the movie every time I visit the SkS homepage - it's really annoying. A simple fix would be to put the image before the break and movie after. (Or just move the movie to youtube).
Moderator Response: [Sph] Done, thanks. Not worth moving to YouTube, but getting the video off the snippet displayed on the home page was a good idea. -
pcrudy at 02:15 AM on 5 February 2013Climate's changed before
'....It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally...' is just another absurd comparision.
Comparing a billions of years old eco system and it's natural forcings over eons, to e.g. two neanderthals rubbing two sticks together 10,000 years ago to start a fire, and then accidently starting a bush fire, (proving that even neanderthals had the ability to change the climate!) demonstrates (-snip-).
Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. Please read this site's Comments Policy before commenting further (link adjacent to the comment box). Further comments constructed as this one will be deleted in their entirety. FYI. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:06 AM on 5 February 2013Glaciers still shrinking in 2011, how have contrarians claimed the opposite?
Don... With the new WYSIWYG tool you can click the "insert" tab and easily link a URL. Sorry for killing that last link.
-
WYSIWYG Comments Feature
Oddly enough, under the latest version of Google Chrome - Going to SkepticalScience.com, or this page, positions the browser to show the movie illustrating the editor at the top of the page. Not the top of the page itself, but scrolled down a fair bit. FireFox does not show this behavior.
This occurs even after clearing the browser cache - it's not due to old data. Chrome just seems to like the movie :)
-
kampmannpeine at 00:21 AM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
super - Thank you all !
-
CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 4 February 2013It's the sun
Sabretruthtiger wrote: "The high degree of correlation also suggests that solar activity is the primary driver of global temperature on every time scale studied (which is pretty much every time scale but the Milankovitch cycle)."
As others have noted, the period since ~1960 is another time scale where solar activity is clearly not the primary driver of temperature change. However, it is interesting that you were apparently aware that your argument did not hold true for the Milankovitch cycles... yet apparently couldn't make the connection between CO2 being the primary driver of temperature changes there and the 'recent time scale' link between increasing CO2 and temperature.
So yes, if we ignore every time scale at which solar activity was not the primary driver of temperature changes then we would conclude that solar activity is always the primary driver of temperature changes. We would just be wrong. As your argument clearly is.
Prev 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 Next
