Register to Comment
Page 1766 of 6600 FirstFirst ... 76612661666171617561764176517661767176817761816186622662766 ... LastLast
Results 17,651 to 17,660 of 65999
Like Tree13963Likes
  1. #17651
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus

    The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”

    The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus | Watts Up With That?
    Oh, do keep up, you are dozing again at the back.

    Already debunked.

    From the IPCC statement:

    The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates
    “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC”
    to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports
    I think the defendants will lose this particular skirmish, especially as
    • the Nobel Prize had nothing to do with the defamation.
    • it shows Mann's expertise is recognised by his peers and the UN, as does his recent award of the Oeschger Prize.
    • the defendants like the CEI had dealings with denier Christopher Monkton and never queried his right to a Nobel Prize pin in his lapel. Monckton doesn't have an IPCC scroll.

    But what is surprising is the way deniers are harping on about this. In the larger scheme of the case, it is not worth a hill of beans. Maybe it illustrates how strong Mann's case is, if this is the only nit they can pick.
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 15th November 2012 at 09:36 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #17652
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    U.N. Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize Share, Denounces Climate Alarmism

    Christy tells the world that not only does he believe it's unproven that humans cause global warming ....
    But, as usual, the world ignored him, yawned, scratched its ass, and went about its business ...
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #17653
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    The difference that 1ft of sea level rise makes to a storm surge in the New York area:

    71,000 more people affected.
    31,000 more homes affected



    71,000 New Yorkers: “Rise Does Matter!” « Global Warming: Man or Myth?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #17654
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    Well done for putting Aggrotologist in his place, he who has "written hundreds of affidavits and read many more" in another life.
    Possibly the only thing on this Earth that is not finite is your stupidity.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #17655
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    A study that links loss of polar ice volume and sea level rise over the last 150,000 years. During ice-volume reductions, sea level rise reached 1.2m.

    Current global warming necessitates a detailed understanding of the relationships between climate and global ice volume. Highly resolved and continuous sea-level records are essential for quantifying ice-volume changes. However, an unbiased study of the timing of past ice-volume changes, relative to polar climate change, has so far been impossible because available sea-level records either were dated by using orbital tuning or ice-core timescales, or were discontinuous in time. Here we present an independent dating of a continuous, high-resolution sea-level record1, 2 in millennial-scale detail throughout the past 150,000 years. We find that the timing of ice-volume fluctuations agrees well with that of variations in Antarctic climate and especially Greenland climate. Amplitudes of ice-volume fluctuations more closely match Antarctic (rather than Greenland) climate changes. Polar climate and ice-volume changes, and their rates of change, are found to covary within centennial response times. Finally, rates of sea-level rise reached at least 1.2 m per century during all major episodes of ice-volume reduction.
    Rapid coupling between ice volume and polar temperature over the past 150,000 years
    K. M. Grant,
    E. J. Rohling,
    M. Bar-Matthews,
    A. Ayalon,
    M. Medina-Elizalde,
    C. Bronk Ramsey,
    C. Satow
    & A. P. Roberts


    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11593.html
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #17656
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Quote Originally Posted by realist View Post
    This is interesting because one of the big monsters who fund all the people who question the hypothesis of AGW is Exxon Mobil according to most posters on here. It is surprising that he would choose to pay someone who defends them.
    It would only be surprising if he was some outright purist nutter. And if there were any of those purist nutters here, then they may argue that this is a chance for the lawyer to redeem himself.

    But any sane person would take the best professional for the job, and wouldn't turn them away. You're looking for something juicy here, but there really isn't anything. What next? Michael Mann's affadavit was written on non-recycled paper?

    The link is that in the case against the football coach there were alleged to be emails which were used as a reason for the arrest of those who are alleged to have had knowledge of his wrongdoing.
    Each case is distinct. The most that could be wrung out of some emails 'link,' is a strong precedence of Penn State hiding facts by concealing emails, but this won't fly. But the cases are completely distinct.

    It has nothing to do with actual climate change but the Mann hockey stick has a lot to do with the claim that it is caused by human activity.
    No. MBH98 and 99 have nothing to do with demonstrating the valididty of anthropogenic climate change. Even if the MWP was global and warmer than today, that doesn't make a shred of difference to the physics of greenhouse gases.

    It is a complete furfy than eliminating the 'hockey stick' from the science of climate change will change anything. Take out all of Mann's work and there are still a couple dozen reconstructions showing much the same conclusions. Take out all millennial reconstructions, and you still have all the other science. MBH98/99 are not cards holding up a house. They are bricks in a solid wall. Take out a couple of bricks, the wall will still stand.

    And this is the challenge for skeptics; they have to dismantle a wall of evidence. Discrediting a couple of scientists, rebutting a handful of apapers - that is not going to make much of a dent. Contrarians need a comprehensive explanation for observed phenomena, and proxy records, that explains everything better than mainstream theory. Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why is Arctic sea ice melting so rapidly? Why is Antarctic sea ice relatively stable or slightly increasing? Why is upwelling IR in the CO2 spectra becoming dimmer over time? Why is the surface of the earth warming in general? Why are the oceans getting warmer over the long term? Why is there less oxygen in the air? Why has the tropopause height increased? Why do some trees show diverging temperatures in the late 20th century compared to thermometer and other proxies? Why are most glaciers melting? Why are the length of seasons changing? Why is there more water vapour in the atmosphere? Why are treelines shifting poleward and increasing in altitude? Why are species followng a similar pattern? Why is the North Pole warming faster than the rest of the Earth? Why is the upper atmosphere shrinking? Why are the oceans becoming more acidic? Why are nights warming faster than days over the long term?

    Etc etc etc.

    There are thousands of studies exploring these issues.

    Eliminate Mann's hockey stick and what have you got left? A massive wall of science supporting AGW.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #17657
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Music break, folks.



    A nobel song
    Last edited by SirCharles; 16th November 2012 at 01:35 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #17658
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    Scientific consensus shifts public opinion on climate change

    The study showed it was important for scientific communicators and journalists to tell their audience that the vast majority of climate change experts believe that human activity is causing global warming.

    “It is reaching even those people who would normally tune out when you tell them the evidence,” Prof Lewandowsky said, adding that journalists should not give denialists and climate change experts equal air time.

    “The media is being irresponsible if they are pretending there is a scientific debate in light of this consensus.”

    Will J Grant from the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University said it was an interesting and useful study.

    “We can say people are convinced by the consensus but the big caveat is sceptics and climate change sceptics in particular are never going to be convinced by this,” he said. “They will say science doesn’t work by vote, it’s about facts.”

    “Realistically, though, most of those sceptics are of an older generation. We are never going to convince them but they will be disappearing from the political discourse soon.”
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #17659
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    ClimateDialogue.org is a site set up by a Ministry of the Dutch government to encourage debate between climate scientists and "sceptics". First mistake is to accept the bona-fides of the "sceptics", but ok let's see where it leads .....

    Format is that three scientists are invited to comment on a climate related phenomenon, and the thread is open for comments. I presume it is firmly moderated.

    First topic was Arctic Ice with Walt Meier, Judith Curry and Ron Lindsay. Worth a look, including the comments.

    Climate Dialogue

    Neven's take (at http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/...tive.html#more)

    But the main point is: if we all agree that the changes in the Arctic are caused by human activities (fully or partly is in my view pretty irrelevant), then automatically AGW - both GW and A - is 'proven' to exist. It is very difficult to maintain that this will not cause the climate to change in the Arctic and beyond. This means that the dialogue about climate (science) is no longer an issue on a societal level and we can move on to the policy dialogue, where everyone, left, right, anarchist, communist, fascist, libertarian, free market fundamentalist, hippie, can offer solutions to the problem. Business-as-usual, ie ignoring the problem or acting as if it isn't there, isn't a solution
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 16th November 2012 at 08:54 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #17660
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    An interesting paper I found in the comments at Climate Dialogue. It examines Russian maps of ice extent going back to 1933.

    We present a time series of sea ice extent in the Russian Arctic based on observational sea ice charts compiled by the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI). These charts are perhaps the oldest operational sea ice data in existence and show that sea ice extent in the Russian Arctic has generally decreased since the beginning of the chart series in 1933. This retreat has not been continuous, however. For the Russian Arctic as a whole in summer, there have been two periods of retreat separated by a partial recovery between the mid-1950s and mid-1980s. The AARI charts, combined with air temperature records, suggest that the retreat in recent decades is pan-Arctic and year-round in some regions, whereas the early twentieth century retreat was only observed in summer in the Russian Arctic. The AARI ice charts indicate that a significant transition occurred in the Russian Arctic in the mid-1980s, when its sea ice cover began to retreat along with that of the rest of the Arctic. Summertime sea ice extents derived from the AARI data set agree with those derived from passive microwave, including the Hadley Centre's global sea ice coverage and sea surface temperature (HadISST) data set. The HadISST results do not indicate the 1980s transition or the partial recovery that took place before it. The AARI charts therefore add significantly to our understanding of the variability of Arctic sea ice over the last 8 decades, and we recommend their inclusion in future historical data sets of Arctic sea ice.
    Observed sea ice extent in the Russian Arctic, 1933–2006

    Andrew R. Mahoney
    National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    Roger G. Barry
    National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    Vasily Smolyanitsky
    Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia

    Florence Fetterer
    National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA


    Observed sea ice extent in the Russian Arctic, 1933–2006
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment