|
Post by magellan on Mar 14, 2013 1:21:16 GMT
sigurdur, I'm not sure you can blame what is in op ed pieces, especially when the impression you have appears to derive from Mann's interpretation of the paper. If you watch the video here, the second author on the paper agrees that a warm blip followed by a cooling blip over a century may not show up: dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/He actually says [paraphrased] "we cannot exclude a rapid blip of 0.8C" if it lasted only a century or so. The point he emphasises is that as we know the cause of the current blip is mostly CO2 (because we know nothing much else is going on in the climate that could explain much of the warming), and as we know the CO2 is still rising quickly, we can reasonably conclude that the current blip will likely exceed anything that could possibly be hidden in the reconstruction by 2100 because of its height and time-extent. Ah yes, the "blip" problem. wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/14/reading-every-one-of-the-5000-climategate-2-emails/
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 14, 2013 3:35:32 GMT
And this surprises anyone?
The actors in this Saga have become so corrupt and dishonest that ALL funding should STOP.......immediately!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 15, 2013 5:27:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 15, 2013 19:43:49 GMT
Tornado's anyone?
/photo/1
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 22, 2013 14:41:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Apr 25, 2013 12:29:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 25, 2013 13:09:10 GMT
There are so many things wrong with this op-ed piece.......but the authors suffer greatly from the syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2013 16:56:41 GMT
There are so many things wrong with this op-ed piece.......but the authors suffer greatly from the syndrome. Go on then. Tell us what you think is wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 25, 2013 17:09:38 GMT
There are so many things wrong with this op-ed piece.......but the authors suffer greatly from the syndrome. Go on then. Tell us what you think is wrong with it. Because it reached into an area where scientists are in deep disagreement and cherry picks an answer from the most extreme point of view. How is that for starters?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 25, 2013 18:09:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2013 18:13:22 GMT
Go on then. Tell us what you think is wrong with it. Because it reached into an area where scientists are in deep disagreement and cherry picks an answer from the most extreme point of view. How is that for starters? Because sigurdur has already pointed out that it is an op ed that responds to an unbalanced article with a personal opinion. What is wrong with it (apart from it being an op ed).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2013 18:30:08 GMT
Point 1 of Tisdale was truly stupid - pretending that Nuccitelli was talking about the Pacific because the sub-editor of the Guardian used a picture of the Earth that happens to show the Pacific. Point 2 was pretty weak because Nuccitelli does not claim that AGW causes ENSO. Point 3 is dumb. Nuccitelli says warm water has gone deep. Tisdale says cool water has gone shallow. Hardly a rebuttal. In Tisdale's "attack" of the escalator he simply repeats the escalator and then uses Nuccitelli's arguments to explain why the escalator is a more "real" representation of temperatures. But we're still in need of an explanation for the upward steps. So the only difference between Nuccitelli and Tisdale is that Nucittelli believes that the steady warming effect of CO2 is moderated by ENSO such that it may look like an escalator, and Tisdale believes that the clouds kindly open to send warmth into the oceans then the oceans kindly open to spread warmth into the rest of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 25, 2013 22:03:04 GMT
Steve: Now you are getting the point... Nuccitelli latches on a paper that shows warming deep oceans. Even tho they haven't been measured. Both authors are spurious to the central question. Are the oceans truly heating up? There is not enough reliable data to say one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 25, 2013 23:12:37 GMT
Point 1 of Tisdale was truly stupid - pretending that Nuccitelli was talking about the Pacific because the sub-editor of the Guardian used a picture of the Earth that happens to show the Pacific. Point 2 was pretty weak because Nuccitelli does not claim that AGW causes ENSO. Point 3 is dumb. Nuccitelli says warm water has gone deep. Tisdale says cool water has gone shallow. Hardly a rebuttal. In Tisdale's "attack" of the escalator he simply repeats the escalator and then uses Nuccitelli's arguments to explain why the escalator is a more "real" representation of temperatures. But we're still in need of an explanation for the upward steps. So the only difference between Nuccitelli and Tisdale is that Nucittelli believes that the steady warming effect of CO2 is moderated by ENSO such that it may look like an escalator, and Tisdale believes that the clouds kindly open to send warmth into the oceans then the oceans kindly open to spread warmth into the rest of the planet. Trenberth did. Nuccitelli has been gobsmacked too many times and SkS in general, not to mention they have no credibility as it is well known John Cook et al alter their OP after the fact. The fact is the oceans are not warming as advertised, particularly at the equator where it all starts.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 26, 2013 0:46:11 GMT
magellan: It is such a hoot to watch some of this. Ya have one feller who claims the world is boiling away, but he can't measure it.
Bob claims the oceans aren't warming........which they aren't. AT least he uses the part that HAS been measured.
But even with that, there is a huge volume of water that we know virtually nothing about. Heck, we don't even understand how the currents work.....and there was a NEW current discovered not long ago that no one even knew existed. (The one off Antarctica)......
I have been exposed to too many shysters.....I can smell one a mile away anymore. Snake oil salesman.....the centuries change, but the methods don't.
|
|