Huh? Climate science is just a small part of the research the National Science Foundation supports. I'd bet it doesn't even amount to 5% of their budget.
When a scientist emails people and says you should intentionally misrepresent and hide data to further the goal of alarmism for funding, that is misconduct.
Why don't you provide a cite that actually shows that. Nothing in the stolen emails from East Anglia shows that.
You know the deniers don't have much in the way of science to back up their position so they turn to villainizing people like Al Gore, Michael Mann and Phil Jones. If you can't attack the message then attack the messenger.
Al Gore argued (incorrectly) that we can directly attribute Hurricane Katrina to global warming.
Please provide a cite for that. I've never heard that Al Gore specifically attributed Katrina to global warming. He may have said that global warming might have strengthened it a bit compared to what it would have been without GW but I'd bet money you can't cite a quote where he said Katrina was caused by it.
I think you'd find, if you investigated, that most climate research is unbiased and reasonable. It's just that the other side wants to make it seem like it isn't because they don't have any real science themselves to counter it.
The computer models are a representation of the current hypothesis, and there isn't a single one that has been able to accurately predict future climate and observational data.
And yet they do a better job of it than the pronouncements of people like Anthony Watts and Christopher Monkton.
Name one useful prediction of AGW theory. Now tell me how many attempts have been made to falsify it. Hint: zero because such a test can't be devised and wouldn't be funded if it could. Such a test can't be devised because AGW makes no testable predictions.
How about this. If global warming is caused by the Sun heating up you would expect the stratosphere to heat up but if it's caused by increased greenhouse gases you expect the stratosphere to cool some. And in fact observations have shown that the stratosphere has cooled some.
Show me the computer model run from ten years ago that its creators published that accurately predicted the general climate of eight of the last ten years.
That you would think 10 years of computer model run is meaningful in this context just shows you don't understand what climate models do. James Hansen's projections from 1988 do a pretty reasonable projection for Scenario B. Here's a comment on how good it did.
Well, AGW as a concept may be too general by it's self to falsify but each of the thousands of specific things that go into it certainly are. But I think AGW itself is falsifiable. It's just not immediately falsifiable. If it's going to be falsified that might take another 20 or 30 years (not that I think it will be).
Regarding your weather/climate shot at models, if you flip a coin once it's fifty-fifty whether it comes up heads or tails. But if you flip it 100 times you can say that you are 95% certainty the results will be 50 heads +/- 5 and 50 tails +/- 5 (numbers made up but probably not that far off). So weather is equivalent to a single coin flip, climate is like 100 coin flips.
To answer Nail's response to you, the code and other information for most climate models are now available. You can find links to a number of them here.
Pray-tell, what specifically tells you Mann's original "hockey stick graph" is wrong just by looking at it? There have been over 10 similar studies by independent groups since that was published in 1998 and they all support the same conclusions as the original. Maybe the scientists aren't speaking up because they don't find anything wrong with Mann's work.
Actually there is very little water vapor in the atmosphere of Venus, only about 20 ppmv (0.002%). OTOH, CO2 is 96.5% of Venus's atmosphere and so is by far the primary GHG on Venus.
While this is possibly true (and I'm not saying it is or is not), it misses the point.
Just to clear this up it's not close to being true (and NeutronCowboy was being sarcastic). Even the biggest eruption in the past 50 years, Pinatubo in 1991, only added about 42 megatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere (compared to 30 gigatonnes per year from human emissions).
It's true as far as it goes. Each increment of CO2 is a bit less effective than the previous increment. That relationship is expressed in the term Climate Sensitivity which expresses the temperature increase expected for a doubling of CO2. The number is thought to be around 3 degrees C. So for example if you increased the CO2 level from 100 ppmv to 200 ppmv the temperature goes up by 3C, go from 200 ppmv to 400 ppmv, another 3C. But we're not anywhere close to the situation of the example in your cite where "Further coats of paint have no effect on light transmission, because all the light is already blocked". Venus with 965,000 ppmv might be there.
Read your source again. The 29,888,121 figure is thousands of metric tonnes or 29,888,121,000 written out fully.
That is opposed to more than 130,000,000 tonnes from volcanoes which means volcanic emissions are about 0.43% of human emissions. Actually the generally stated value is around 1% but getting precise figures for volcanic emissions is a bit difficult.
I agree though that the CO2 is pretty evenly distributed through the atmosphere once you leave the immediate vicinity of a source.
I do try to help out the guys responsible for the Windows desktops as much as I can but Oracle on Solaris pretty much runs itself once you get it set up properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it will take at least several hundred years for land that has been in permafrost for millennia to stabilize after the permafrost melts.
Huh? Climate science is just a small part of the research the National Science Foundation supports. I'd bet it doesn't even amount to 5% of their budget.
You want Mann's data and algorithms for the original 1998 hockey stick graph? They are here.
You want the updated data from 2008 and 2009? They are here and here.
More links to other forms of climate data and methods are here.
The arguments that climate scientists are not releasing their data and methods are no longer viable because they have now for the most part.
When a scientist emails people and says you should intentionally misrepresent and hide data to further the goal of alarmism for funding, that is misconduct.
Why don't you provide a cite that actually shows that. Nothing in the stolen emails from East Anglia shows that.
You know the deniers don't have much in the way of science to back up their position so they turn to villainizing people like Al Gore, Michael Mann and Phil Jones. If you can't attack the message then attack the messenger.
Al Gore argued (incorrectly) that we can directly attribute Hurricane Katrina to global warming.
Please provide a cite for that. I've never heard that Al Gore specifically attributed Katrina to global warming. He may have said that global warming might have strengthened it a bit compared to what it would have been without GW but I'd bet money you can't cite a quote where he said Katrina was caused by it.
I think you'd find, if you investigated, that most climate research is unbiased and reasonable. It's just that the other side wants to make it seem like it isn't because they don't have any real science themselves to counter it.
Isn't if funny how many people are missing your sarcasm and taking you seriously? Thanks for amusing me.
The computer models are a representation of the current hypothesis, and there isn't a single one that has been able to accurately predict future climate and observational data.
And yet they do a better job of it than the pronouncements of people like Anthony Watts and Christopher Monkton.
Name one useful prediction of AGW theory. Now tell me how many attempts have been made to falsify it. Hint: zero because such a test can't be devised and wouldn't be funded if it could. Such a test can't be devised because AGW makes no testable predictions.
How about this. If global warming is caused by the Sun heating up you would expect the stratosphere to heat up but if it's caused by increased greenhouse gases you expect the stratosphere to cool some. And in fact observations have shown that the stratosphere has cooled some.
Show me the computer model run from ten years ago that its creators published that accurately predicted the general climate of eight of the last ten years.
That you would think 10 years of computer model run is meaningful in this context just shows you don't understand what climate models do. James Hansen's projections from 1988 do a pretty reasonable projection for Scenario B. Here's a comment on how good it did.
Because sometimes there is reason to be alarmed? OTOH denying reality is never reasonable.
Some are exposed here.
Well, AGW as a concept may be too general by it's self to falsify but each of the thousands of specific things that go into it certainly are. But I think AGW itself is falsifiable. It's just not immediately falsifiable. If it's going to be falsified that might take another 20 or 30 years (not that I think it will be).
Regarding your weather/climate shot at models, if you flip a coin once it's fifty-fifty whether it comes up heads or tails. But if you flip it 100 times you can say that you are 95% certainty the results will be 50 heads +/- 5 and 50 tails +/- 5 (numbers made up but probably not that far off). So weather is equivalent to a single coin flip, climate is like 100 coin flips.
To answer Nail's response to you, the code and other information for most climate models are now available. You can find links to a number of them here.
Pray-tell, what specifically tells you Mann's original "hockey stick graph" is wrong just by looking at it? There have been over 10 similar studies by independent groups since that was published in 1998 and they all support the same conclusions as the original. Maybe the scientists aren't speaking up because they don't find anything wrong with Mann's work.
Actually there is very little water vapor in the atmosphere of Venus, only about 20 ppmv (0.002%). OTOH, CO2 is 96.5% of Venus's atmosphere and so is by far the primary GHG on Venus.
While this is possibly true (and I'm not saying it is or is not), it misses the point.
Just to clear this up it's not close to being true (and NeutronCowboy was being sarcastic). Even the biggest eruption in the past 50 years, Pinatubo in 1991, only added about 42 megatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere (compared to 30 gigatonnes per year from human emissions).
If you've seen NeutronCowboy's posts before you'd quickly realize he's mocking them.
It's true as far as it goes. Each increment of CO2 is a bit less effective than the previous increment. That relationship is expressed in the term Climate Sensitivity which expresses the temperature increase expected for a doubling of CO2. The number is thought to be around 3 degrees C. So for example if you increased the CO2 level from 100 ppmv to 200 ppmv the temperature goes up by 3C, go from 200 ppmv to 400 ppmv, another 3C. But we're not anywhere close to the situation of the example in your cite where "Further coats of paint have no effect on light transmission, because all the light is already blocked". Venus with 965,000 ppmv might be there.
World total CO2 emissions by man kind: 29,888,121 metric tons (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)
Read your source again. The 29,888,121 figure is thousands of metric tonnes or 29,888,121,000 written out fully.
That is opposed to more than 130,000,000 tonnes from volcanoes which means volcanic emissions are about 0.43% of human emissions. Actually the generally stated value is around 1% but getting precise figures for volcanic emissions is a bit difficult.
I agree though that the CO2 is pretty evenly distributed through the atmosphere once you leave the immediate vicinity of a source.
Ever notice that when several independent investigations into a matter reach the same conclusion that the conclusions are strengthened?
Or alternatively: What will it cost not to reduce CO2?
It's ironic to me since I eschew Facebook membership.
I see this story and right above it is "Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook" No thanks.
I do try to help out the guys responsible for the Windows desktops as much as I can but Oracle on Solaris pretty much runs itself once you get it set up properly.
It does, doesn't it?
But for the woosh worthy I was just combining "Goo" with "gondola" which is what they call the boats in Venice.
I should have included 80-1180 cm is 2.6-5.9 feet.