He is also witty and keen to debate with anyone, in exactly the same way that Al Gore isn't.
Quote:
I challenged Mr Gore about this in an interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme in March.
He responded, accurately, that scientists believe that CO2 is now driving climate change - but that was not what his misleading historical graph showed.
And after the interview he and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
He is also witty and keen to debate with anyone, in exactly the same way that Al Gore isn't.
Quote:
I challenged Mr Gore about this in an interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme in March.
He responded, accurately, that scientists believe that CO2 is now driving climate change - but that was not what his misleading historical graph showed.
And after the interview he and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
One last post, that 97% consensus figure of scientists supporting AGW looks like being a little frail.
Quote:
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 — that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken — those 2,500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
The upshot? The punditry looked for and found an alternative number to tout: “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post, the U.K.’s Guardian, CNN and other news outlets now claim, along with some two million postings in the blogosphere.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
The temperature by the thermometers is higher. Why have an indirect indicator, when you have a direct one?
The Arctic ice cap doesn't lie -- water melting an freezing points are absolute. The volume of ice is a small fraction of what it was just a few years ago. If it is getting cooler, then why is the Arctic ice melting to lower and lower minimums?
And before you ask, the reason the Antarctic is gaining a *little* ice is because of the increased amount of moisture in the atmosphere, which falls as snow when it is below freezing. After we gain a little more heat, the Antarctic will then start losing ice volume.
We have great data on what the carbon dioxide levels were when the polar ice caps froze.
Sure in the past, carbon dioxide was as high as 1,000 PPM, and there was no ice at all anywhere, and sea level was a LOT higher. Volcanoes can change the carbon dixoide by ~100 PPM / Million Years -- which is about 1/10,000th PPM / Year. Humans are changing it by ~2 PPM / Year.
Check the Vostok ice core data - and just about all others.
Dustier = colder.
It has happened quite a few times before, without any significant human intervention ... as Bob Carter points out in the video.
Interestingly the Met Office, who just before Cancun anounced that 2010 was the warmest on record - just before they sent a scientist to go to the conference, and who was ironically snowed in at Heathrow. Now they state that 2010 was the 12th coldest on record.
Quote:
In 2010 the UK recorded a provisional mean temperature of 8.0 °C, making it the 12th coldest year in the series, that goes back to 1910.
Of course the title of this release is - tada "Record cold December 2010" - no mention of the 2010 stat in the headline...
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
Is there a question that the temperature is rising? Or is the question one of why? or??
Assuming it is rising and getting more energetic, It wouldn't surprise me that we would could see higher highs AND lower lows in some places, and that some places could get colder as the earths fluids made adjustments.
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
The temperature by the thermometers is higher. Why have an indirect indicator, when you have a direct one?
Obviously that depends on where you measure, and what period you measure.
Our thermometers for 2010 say there's no GW.
Quote:
The Arctic ice cap doesn't lie
I'm sure it doesn't lie.
But the question is not wether it's lying, but what exactly it is saying.
Quote:
And before you ask, the reason the Antarctic is gaining a *little* ice is because of the increased amount of moisture in the atmosphere, which falls as snow when it is below freezing. After we gain a little more heat, the Antarctic will then start losing ice volume.
So you still want to have it both ways ...
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side
The Arctic ice cap doesn't lie -- water melting an freezing points are absolute. The volume of ice is a small fraction of what it was just a few years ago. If it is getting cooler, then why is the Arctic ice melting to lower and lower minimums?
Link? Number? Citation? No?
Didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
And before you ask, the reason the Antarctic is gaining a *little* ice is because of the increased amount of moisture in the atmosphere, which falls as snow when it is below freezing. After we gain a little more heat, the Antarctic will then start losing ice volume.
This statement exhibits a surprisingly large amount of ignorance about the water cycle. How would you explain how a "little more heat" somehow would not lead to even more water vapor from sea evaporation going to the polar caps and falling as snow? For that matter, can you explain what happens with heat transfer with regard to rain, storms, cyclones, tornadoes, and the like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
We have great data on what the carbon dioxide levels were when the polar ice caps froze.
Sure in the past, carbon dioxide was as high as 1,000 PPM, and there was no ice at all anywhere, and sea level was a LOT higher.
Um... How can we know that carbon dioxide levels were 1000 PPM as measured in ice core samples, when there, um, "was no ice at all anywhere?"
Besides that, how is it that 2008 polar ice levels grew 10 percent from 2007? Doesn't sound very much like 110% is a small fraction of 100%. That is, unless you do math differently from me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Volcanoes can change the carbon dixoide by ~100 PPM / Million Years -- which is about 1/10,000th PPM / Year. Humans are changing it by ~2 PPM / Year.
The atmospheric carbon dioxide inventory is something on the order of 750 gigatons, or 750,000,000,000 tons. Manmade contributions are about 6 gigatons, or 0.8 percent of that above number with the 10 zeros in it.
So, take this magical 383 ppm that AGW supporters love to whine about, which represents the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today, by concentration. Then, let's take 280 ppm, which is the "pre-industrial" level of carbon dioxide. Finally, let's take that 0.8 percent I mentioned.
0.8 percent of 383 ppm is... 3.064 ppm. Take 3.064 ppm from 383 ppm, and you have... 380.36 ppm. Hm... That's still higher than 280 ppm, which is supposed to be the magical pristine concentration of carbon dioxide.
So, in other words, even if Mankind were to stop emitting carbon dioxide altogether, the reduced amount of carbon dioxide would still be ABOVE the "pre-industrial" level.
Last edited by t vago; 01-07-2011 at 11:27 AM..
Reason: added a little something
...The atmospheric carbon dioxide inventory is something on the order of 750 gigatons, or 750,000,000,000 tons. Manmade contributions are about 6 gigatons, or 0.8 percent of that above number with the 10 zeros in it.
That is 6 gigatons per year, so we add about 1% per year, starting many years ago.
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
