Trouble is that observations and model output seem to be in close agreement
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
look at figure c. This includes all forcings including natural and anthropogenic. The curves match quite well. Then there is Jim Hansen model forecast from 1988 ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif ) which matches observations quite well. Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. Don't give us the bull*it like Pat Michaels did when he LIED under oath before Congress that scenario A is what Hansen was forecasting. Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model were given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007).
So SCIENCE SAYS THAT CURRENT GENERATION MODELS MATCH OBSERVATIONS WELL WITHIN THE ERROR BOUNDS OF OBSERVATIONS. Deniers continue to LIE about the mismatch
Maybe not a rack-full but certainly a HP DL-385 G7 with two AMD magny-cours cpus, 48gb of memory and 1tb of disk. Using OpenSolaris and SunStudio compliers WRF (an easily parallelized numerical weather prediction model) performs exceptionally well and the cost is under $5500US
Let's try the lasty first go to surfacestations.org and then to www.ncdc.noaa.gov and compare site photos. Then look a what objects are in focus in the surfacestations.org photos. The only way the two objects in the surfacestations.org photos can be in focus is with a very very large depth of field. To get that large of field a very long telephoto lens (>400m focal length) had to be used. Photographers often make use of the large depth of field of long telephoto lens. The large depth of field of telephoto lens can be seen in photographs of football games where both the Quarterback and people on the sidelines are all in focus. Simply put air conditioner next to the surface station isn't It is far away, the photograph was deliberately done in manner to make it look there are next to each when they are not. Since you are such a big fan of Watts, why don't you read all of his posts where he defends his photos as being legitimate even though they aren't.
Second point Watts supports Spencers claim that clouds are causing warming. Watts supports Spencer deliberately choice of model data and observations that the greatest difference. Using the same approach as the difference can be made nearly zero. For Watts to support this kind of cherry picking shows a misrepresentation of Dresslers work.
For you first point Gee you mean like where Watts doesn't understand the difference between a mean and a sample, or maybe you mean where Watts doesn't understand that the values and graphs presented in journal articles represent the deviation from a long term mean, even though the figure label clearly states that values are the deviation from the long-term mean. Maybe you mean Watts doesn't understand that 10 years of observations does provide enough values to meet a 95% level confidence test.
Try reading Global Physical Climatology by Hartmann or Physical Climatology by Landsberg both are used in a freshman meteorology majors climatology course. Then try Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering by Brownlee
The scientists HAVE NOT TURNED POLITICAL, it was the likes of Inhofe, Miloy, Watts, Morano and a host of other NON-SCIENTISTS who found that their status-quo would be adversely affected by any policy changes if the SCIENCE were acted on are the ones who turned climate science in a poltical battle. Exactly the same strategy followed by the tobacco industry to discredit those scientists whose work showed the link between lung cancer and smoking. Indeed Steve Miloy, who devised the tobacco strategy freely admits he suggested using the same strategy for climate science to the oil/gas industry. Thus you get Dennis Avery who worked for the tobacco industry via the Hudson Instititue suddenly becoming a climate scientist even though he has NEVER done any work or even taken a course in either meteorology or climatology. Given that "distinguished scientists" were need to back the disinformation/politicalization campaign they tried people Fredrick Sietz. Unfortunately Sietz said in an interview in May 2006 “‘They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking,’ but it nevertheless served the tobacco industry’s purposes. Throughout those years, the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed.” Unfortunately Sietz didn't serve either the tobacco or the science deniers very well. In a 1989 internal memo from tobacco company Philip Morris explaining that Seitz “is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” Then Arthur Robinson and Sietz got into further trouble with the Oregon Petition. Arthur Robinson and Sietz along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming. The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented. Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Seitz. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. This was just the first salvo in the politization of science in order to stall off any policy changes. When the oil/gas industry started dumping metric buttloads of money into the science denial project all sorts of "climater scientists" came out of the wood work. People like Ian Pilmer, washed up and retired geologist, Tim Ball, who has not published a single research paper in 11 years in ANY TOPIC, Tony Watts who isn't a meteorologist, but claims he is, Gerhard Gerlich, a physcist who says the first and second laws of thermodynamics are wrong
Yes I've read how Roy Spencer is whining that he has had his hat handed to him and he is mad that he is being taken to task for claiming in press releases results that his own paper did not claim. Yes I know that Spencer claims that there is vast conspiracy to prevent him from publishing and getting grant funding, yet he continues to publish rubbish which any first year meteorology student or first year mathematics student can demoloish. Yet he continues to be funded for his real research via NASA. Yes I know that is paid large sums of money by groups like AEI, Heartland, Heritage on the radar chicken circuit to voice his own political beliefs as the results of science.
Yes I know that Watts made fundamental errors and misrepresented with malice of forethought Dessler's comments in the poste you quote. Yes I Know that Watts faked photos on his surface stations web site.Yes I know that using Watts' own data and techniques Menne, Williams and Palecki (doi:10.1029/2009JD013094, 2010) showed that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because ASSOCIATED INSTRUMENT CHANGES HAVE LED TO AN ARTIFICAL NEGATIVE BIAS ("COOL") BIAS IN THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES AND ONLY A SLIGHT POSITIVE ("WARM") BIAS IN MINIMUM TEMPERATURES. In other words using the "bad" or poorly sighted stations results a REDUCED increase in temperature with time. "Good" stations only provided a ten year trend of 0.28 +-0.11 degree increase, but "good" and "bad" stations provided a 0.14 +-0.11 increase. Thus Watts premise that including poorly sighted stations artifically increased the observed temperature trend is not only wrong, but including poorly sighted stations DECREASED the observed temperature trends. Before merely repeating garbage from a site that is so full of obvious errors and repeats political screed I suggest you get a copy of "Physical Climatology" by Helmut Landsberg and read the section on how to use statistics. Then get a copy of "Global Physical Climatology" Dennis Hartmann to learn a little basic climatology. Then a copy of "An Introduction to Atmospheric Thermodynamics" by Tsonnis to learn a little about basic thermodynamics. Having taken the time to learn about the science go back to read Watts again and have a hearty laugh at what a fool Watts is
I'd disagree. I remind you of St. Ronnie said "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." I cannot think of anything more descriptive of those whose sole purpose is to destroy the government of the United States than Terrorists. Since it is the stated goal of the TeaParty to destroy the government of the United States the appropriate title is TeaTerrorist. Since the current leaders of the Republican party have behaved in a thugish manner in their dealings with the president (Joe "You Lie" Wilson, Rush "I want him to fail"Limbaugh and Glenn "He's a racist" Beck as simple examples) and the public (deliberately disrupting townhall meetings, Kenneth Gladney and his TeaTerrorists friends faking injuries) they should be called exactly what they are.
Joe_Dragon: Did you read the post? Go back and try again: I am agreeing with everything you are saying. FEDEX paid off the congresscritters from Tennessee to push through a bill that would destroy the USPS. Then FEDEX could buy the remains of the USPS at pennies on the dollar. Of course FEDEX costs are low they make "drivers pay all costs and they are 1099 working even when they must use fedex uniforms, buy / rent fedex truck, pay for gas and all upkeep, buy / rent the route, be on fedex time table. And missing or lost packages come out of there pay as well."
But Again that's what they Rethuglicans/TeaTerrorists/Libertarians want. Unfortunately what they want creates a race to the bottom. Think of SysAdmins working for 25 cents and hour and working more than they do now.
Ah yes, the usual they had control for 2 years line of sh*t. Tell me idjiot what happened in late 2008 under the Rethuglicans? Could it be the Rethuglicans tanked the economy with their "invisible hand of the market" theology. Could it be that the Democrats were trying to clean up the steaming pile the Rethuglicans left behind. Could it be that the Senate Rethuglicans used "holds" to prevent any legislation from going forward? You would think an intelligent person would try to handle the biggest threats to the economy that need to be solved as soon as possible and then worry about fixing smaller less pressing problems once the biggest ones are fixed. You know the concept of priortization.
You make not sense what so ever. Brietbart, Bachmann, Perry, Limbaugh, Coulter, Reagan, Bush, Fauxnews, ie., the Rethuglicans stated goal is to destroy the US government. The Rethuglicans/TeaTerrorist mantra is "smaller" government, meaning no government. Reagan, the Rethuglicans hero, said "Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem". I clearly said the Rethuglicans were trying to sell off the US government to their corporate masters. How you can draw a conclusion that the post should be on a RethuglicanTeaTerrorist website leaves me wondering if you even read the post. Try learning to read.
More anti-union bullshit. Try looking at what FEDEX puts into health care and retirement (80%) and then ask your self why FEDEX gave large campaign donations to the sponsors of the bill that required USPS to pay 100% of FUTURE EMPLOYEES health and retirement. Yes that is FUTURE employees. We want to make sure we can all possible contingencies you know just in case somebody we MIGHT hire might get sick or retire. Try looking to see if FEDEX/UPS actually ever deliver a package to the address on the label, or maybe they just send an email saying come pick up your undeliverable package. This is nothing more than TeaTerrorist/Libertarian/Rethuglicans attempt to destroy the functioning parts of the governement. The intent of TeaTerrorist/Libertarian/Rethuglicans is to sell the USPS for pennies on the dollar so their sponsors can buy a second gold-plated yacht.
Yeah that's because a rethuglican Congress required that the USPS fund both the retirement program and the health plan at 100%. The average for the S&P 500 funding is 80%. Other federal employees is 41%; the military is 24%; and the SAME GOVERNENT bureau which requires the USPS to fund at 100% does not fund its retirement and health plans at all. The $75 billion dollars needed to fund both the retirement program and the health plan at the 100% level is equal to a year's income at the USPS. The stated intent of these rules chages were to make the USPS look like it was losing money. Not so strangely the year the rule changes were enacted FEDEX/UPS were complaining that USPS had an unfair advantage because they had to fund their employees healthcare and retirement at the 80% level, but the USPS was only at 41%. Strange that the sponsors of the bill requiring 100% funding received large campaign donations from FEDEX/UPS. Futher you might check the FEDEX labor cost. FEDEX says it's higher and they don't include the costs of all the part timers they hire around christmas.
USPS is has far better service than the FEDEX/UPS. At least USPS delivers the package rather then sending you an email that says come pick up your package since it couldn't be deliverd. USPS actually pays for damages to a package rather than telling you to f**k off which I ALWAYS get from UPS when UPS punctures packages
Yet another idiot. I tried to give you a simple analogy to consider and you want to show us just how smart you are. Want to show us smart you are yet you failed to mention that southern hemisphere warms at a much slower rate than the northern hemisphere because the southern hemisphere is mostly water covered and the high latent heat of water prevents the temperatures from rising as much.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU DIDN"T DENY/MENTION THAT THE PLANETS ARE NOT WARMING AS YOU CLAIM. THE PLANETS ARE MERELY EXHIBITING SEASONAL CHANGES AS I POINTED OUT. GO BACK TO LISTENING TO Rush/Beck/Hannity/Fauxnew so you cvan get a stab at talking point.
Uh because it's not This is a trick question right? You know that it gets warmer on the earth when the earth moves from winter to spring right? So why should it be different when pluto warms when going from winter to spring then to summer. The temperature record for Mars is full of data gaps but what continuous records of Mars temperatures do not show a temperature increase. Please read a little about the astronomy and meteorolgoy before you repeat crap from Rush/Beck/Hannity/fauxnews
You really don't have any comprehension of what you are talking about. You believe that there is no harm/damage to telling students in a science class that there is debate among scientists whether the earth is 6000 years old or many billion, when in point of fact there is no debate, particularly when they will hear in a history class that there are chinese written record that are more than 12000 years old. There is no single mindedness WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FOOLS LIKE YOU WHO CONTINUE TO SPEW NONSENSE. DO NOT TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE TEACH CONTROVERSEY, BROADEN THE PERSON HORIZONS MEME I SUPPOSE YOU WANT TO TEACH THE CONTROVERSEY BETWEEN GRAVITY AND INTELLIGENT FALLING DOWN AS WELL RIGHT? GO BACK TO YOUR PEST HOLE
Really? Really? How can post here and not be able to read? Why not try the article in Nature or maybe the Mayo Clinic for refutation of Hadwen bullshit. More superstition rather than science.
Since the death toll from Irene turns out to be higher than the original 37 estimate (now 44), and since I should have used 5.5 for the state multiplier rather 5 and using 1.5 days, the more realistic number I still get as many dead in the hurricane as in auto accidents. The number of dead will rise as first responders get a chance to move into places in New York and Vermont that are currently inaccessible. please learn a little math
Since Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida have given us the civil war, the klan and black hole for taxes who cares? In my opinion it is shame the Sherman was limited to Georgia and didn't have tatical nukes. A lot of this country's problems would have never occurred if Sherman was able turn the cesspool of the south into glass
Now the shoe is on the other foot how does it sound bhcompy? Sounds pretty stupid doesn't?
Strange, people were warned and took the necessary precautions and the loss of life was minimized and you're complaining? To use your really bad analogy: Your 142 people per day covers the entire US, extend the 37 people killed in 9 states in under 24 hours to 50 states in 24 hours. To me the 185 people dying are compareable. Try again fool!
Yet another fool who has no clue. This idiot thinks because he slept through a hurricane in florida he's a he-man. I wonder if those 125mph surface winds (175 to 200mph at about 200 feet off the ground) were pushing 1000 gallon water tanks off the roof of 40 story building into his house where he was sleeping would it have woken him up? I doubt it as he would be dead. I wonder if those 125mph surface winds (175 to 200mph at about 200 feet off the ground) were pushing 100 foot radio towers with a couple dozen microwave dishes off the roof of 40 story building into his house would it wake him up? What about 6 foot sheets of glass falling 50 stories into his house would it wake him? Probably not since he would be dead. Because this uneducated idiot hasn't figured out that the reason he can sleep through a hurricane is because is he living in a swamp that mitigates the effects of the waves and winds. He ASSUMEs (the ASS in front of U and ME) that everyone else in the world lives in the same roach infested dismal swamp that he lives in
No all that you have shown is that you haven't a clue about basic science and are parroting what you heard that matches your uninformed biased opinion. Try reading Physical Climatology by Hartmann so that you don't appear so stupid.
No we have not demonstrated anything of the sort! Rather you are the repeating bovine excrement you read on Heartland/SPPI/AEI or other denialist website. Barton (oil-OK) started this crap when he tried to discredit Gore during Gore's testimony before Congress. Unfortunately Barton, deliberately with malice of forethought, misquoted Lorius et al., 1990, and Caillon et al., 2003. Barton and everybody who repeats these lies demonstrate they do not understand basic physics or astronomy.
Let's start with a small SCIENCE lesson. The earth's climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.
The answer lays partly with basic astronomy. Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23. This tilt oscillates between 22.5 and 24.5 (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession). The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. This change in the amount of incoming solar radiation (insolation) is the key to the whole process. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This change in albedo enhanced the warming due to insolation changes.
As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001). PLease note that the CO2 increases are related to warming of the oceans. From basic physics the specific heat of water is high thus the water warms, but the atmosphere doesn't. Every synoptic meteorology student is taught to watch for this effect when making spring temperature forecasts. Even experience forecasters get caught every now and then. The key point is the CO2 increases first due to orbital changes
The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.
CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles.
Slashdot Mirror
Trouble is that observations and model output seem to be in close agreement http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm look at figure c. This includes all forcings including natural and anthropogenic. The curves match quite well. Then there is Jim Hansen model forecast from 1988 ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Hansen_2005_Model.gif ) which matches observations quite well. Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. Don't give us the bull*it like Pat Michaels did when he LIED under oath before Congress that scenario A is what Hansen was forecasting. Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model were given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007). So SCIENCE SAYS THAT CURRENT GENERATION MODELS MATCH OBSERVATIONS WELL WITHIN THE ERROR BOUNDS OF OBSERVATIONS. Deniers continue to LIE about the mismatch
Maybe not a rack-full but certainly a HP DL-385 G7 with two AMD magny-cours cpus, 48gb of memory and 1tb of disk. Using OpenSolaris and SunStudio compliers WRF (an easily parallelized numerical weather prediction model) performs exceptionally well and the cost is under $5500US
Let's try the lasty first go to surfacestations.org and then to www.ncdc.noaa.gov and compare site photos. Then look a what objects are in focus in the surfacestations.org photos. The only way the two objects in the surfacestations.org photos can be in focus is with a very very large depth of field. To get that large of field a very long telephoto lens (>400m focal length) had to be used. Photographers often make use of the large depth of field of long telephoto lens. The large depth of field of telephoto lens can be seen in photographs of football games where both the Quarterback and people on the sidelines are all in focus. Simply put air conditioner next to the surface station isn't It is far away, the photograph was deliberately done in manner to make it look there are next to each when they are not. Since you are such a big fan of Watts, why don't you read all of his posts where he defends his photos as being legitimate even though they aren't. Second point Watts supports Spencers claim that clouds are causing warming. Watts supports Spencer deliberately choice of model data and observations that the greatest difference. Using the same approach as the difference can be made nearly zero. For Watts to support this kind of cherry picking shows a misrepresentation of Dresslers work. For you first point Gee you mean like where Watts doesn't understand the difference between a mean and a sample, or maybe you mean where Watts doesn't understand that the values and graphs presented in journal articles represent the deviation from a long term mean, even though the figure label clearly states that values are the deviation from the long-term mean. Maybe you mean Watts doesn't understand that 10 years of observations does provide enough values to meet a 95% level confidence test. Try reading Global Physical Climatology by Hartmann or Physical Climatology by Landsberg both are used in a freshman meteorology majors climatology course. Then try Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering by Brownlee
The scientists HAVE NOT TURNED POLITICAL, it was the likes of Inhofe, Miloy, Watts, Morano and a host of other NON-SCIENTISTS who found that their status-quo would be adversely affected by any policy changes if the SCIENCE were acted on are the ones who turned climate science in a poltical battle. Exactly the same strategy followed by the tobacco industry to discredit those scientists whose work showed the link between lung cancer and smoking. Indeed Steve Miloy, who devised the tobacco strategy freely admits he suggested using the same strategy for climate science to the oil/gas industry. Thus you get Dennis Avery who worked for the tobacco industry via the Hudson Instititue suddenly becoming a climate scientist even though he has NEVER done any work or even taken a course in either meteorology or climatology. Given that "distinguished scientists" were need to back the disinformation/politicalization campaign they tried people Fredrick Sietz. Unfortunately Sietz said in an interview in May 2006 “‘They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking,’ but it nevertheless served the tobacco industry’s purposes. Throughout those years, the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed.” Unfortunately Sietz didn't serve either the tobacco or the science deniers very well. In a 1989 internal memo from tobacco company Philip Morris explaining that Seitz “is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” Then Arthur Robinson and Sietz got into further trouble with the Oregon Petition. Arthur Robinson and Sietz along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming. The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented. Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Seitz. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. This was just the first salvo in the politization of science in order to stall off any policy changes. When the oil/gas industry started dumping metric buttloads of money into the science denial project all sorts of "climater scientists" came out of the wood work. People like Ian Pilmer, washed up and retired geologist, Tim Ball, who has not published a single research paper in 11 years in ANY TOPIC, Tony Watts who isn't a meteorologist, but claims he is, Gerhard Gerlich, a physcist who says the first and second laws of thermodynamics are wrong
Yes I've read how Roy Spencer is whining that he has had his hat handed to him and he is mad that he is being taken to task for claiming in press releases results that his own paper did not claim. Yes I know that Spencer claims that there is vast conspiracy to prevent him from publishing and getting grant funding, yet he continues to publish rubbish which any first year meteorology student or first year mathematics student can demoloish. Yet he continues to be funded for his real research via NASA. Yes I know that is paid large sums of money by groups like AEI, Heartland, Heritage on the radar chicken circuit to voice his own political beliefs as the results of science. Yes I know that Watts made fundamental errors and misrepresented with malice of forethought Dessler's comments in the poste you quote. Yes I Know that Watts faked photos on his surface stations web site.Yes I know that using Watts' own data and techniques Menne, Williams and Palecki (doi:10.1029/2009JD013094, 2010) showed that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because ASSOCIATED INSTRUMENT CHANGES HAVE LED TO AN ARTIFICAL NEGATIVE BIAS ("COOL") BIAS IN THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES AND ONLY A SLIGHT POSITIVE ("WARM") BIAS IN MINIMUM TEMPERATURES. In other words using the "bad" or poorly sighted stations results a REDUCED increase in temperature with time. "Good" stations only provided a ten year trend of 0.28 +-0.11 degree increase, but "good" and "bad" stations provided a 0.14 +-0.11 increase. Thus Watts premise that including poorly sighted stations artifically increased the observed temperature trend is not only wrong, but including poorly sighted stations DECREASED the observed temperature trends. Before merely repeating garbage from a site that is so full of obvious errors and repeats political screed I suggest you get a copy of "Physical Climatology" by Helmut Landsberg and read the section on how to use statistics. Then get a copy of "Global Physical Climatology" Dennis Hartmann to learn a little basic climatology. Then a copy of "An Introduction to Atmospheric Thermodynamics" by Tsonnis to learn a little about basic thermodynamics. Having taken the time to learn about the science go back to read Watts again and have a hearty laugh at what a fool Watts is
Facts bother you?
I'd disagree. I remind you of St. Ronnie said "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." I cannot think of anything more descriptive of those whose sole purpose is to destroy the government of the United States than Terrorists. Since it is the stated goal of the TeaParty to destroy the government of the United States the appropriate title is TeaTerrorist. Since the current leaders of the Republican party have behaved in a thugish manner in their dealings with the president (Joe "You Lie" Wilson, Rush "I want him to fail"Limbaugh and Glenn "He's a racist" Beck as simple examples) and the public (deliberately disrupting townhall meetings, Kenneth Gladney and his TeaTerrorists friends faking injuries) they should be called exactly what they are.
Joe_Dragon: Did you read the post? Go back and try again: I am agreeing with everything you are saying. FEDEX paid off the congresscritters from Tennessee to push through a bill that would destroy the USPS. Then FEDEX could buy the remains of the USPS at pennies on the dollar. Of course FEDEX costs are low they make "drivers pay all costs and they are 1099 working even when they must use fedex uniforms, buy / rent fedex truck, pay for gas and all upkeep, buy / rent the route, be on fedex time table. And missing or lost packages come out of there pay as well." But Again that's what they Rethuglicans/TeaTerrorists/Libertarians want. Unfortunately what they want creates a race to the bottom. Think of SysAdmins working for 25 cents and hour and working more than they do now.
Ah yes, the usual they had control for 2 years line of sh*t. Tell me idjiot what happened in late 2008 under the Rethuglicans? Could it be the Rethuglicans tanked the economy with their "invisible hand of the market" theology. Could it be that the Democrats were trying to clean up the steaming pile the Rethuglicans left behind. Could it be that the Senate Rethuglicans used "holds" to prevent any legislation from going forward? You would think an intelligent person would try to handle the biggest threats to the economy that need to be solved as soon as possible and then worry about fixing smaller less pressing problems once the biggest ones are fixed. You know the concept of priortization.
You make not sense what so ever. Brietbart, Bachmann, Perry, Limbaugh, Coulter, Reagan, Bush, Fauxnews, ie., the Rethuglicans stated goal is to destroy the US government. The Rethuglicans/TeaTerrorist mantra is "smaller" government, meaning no government. Reagan, the Rethuglicans hero, said "Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem". I clearly said the Rethuglicans were trying to sell off the US government to their corporate masters. How you can draw a conclusion that the post should be on a RethuglicanTeaTerrorist website leaves me wondering if you even read the post. Try learning to read.
It's not the unions idjiot look at the bill the Rethuglicans passed to destroy the USPS so Rethuglicans could sell it of to their masters
More anti-union bullshit. Try looking at what FEDEX puts into health care and retirement (80%) and then ask your self why FEDEX gave large campaign donations to the sponsors of the bill that required USPS to pay 100% of FUTURE EMPLOYEES health and retirement. Yes that is FUTURE employees. We want to make sure we can all possible contingencies you know just in case somebody we MIGHT hire might get sick or retire. Try looking to see if FEDEX/UPS actually ever deliver a package to the address on the label, or maybe they just send an email saying come pick up your undeliverable package. This is nothing more than TeaTerrorist/Libertarian/Rethuglicans attempt to destroy the functioning parts of the governement. The intent of TeaTerrorist/Libertarian/Rethuglicans is to sell the USPS for pennies on the dollar so their sponsors can buy a second gold-plated yacht.
Yeah that's because a rethuglican Congress required that the USPS fund both the retirement program and the health plan at 100%. The average for the S&P 500 funding is 80%. Other federal employees is 41%; the military is 24%; and the SAME GOVERNENT bureau which requires the USPS to fund at 100% does not fund its retirement and health plans at all. The $75 billion dollars needed to fund both the retirement program and the health plan at the 100% level is equal to a year's income at the USPS. The stated intent of these rules chages were to make the USPS look like it was losing money. Not so strangely the year the rule changes were enacted FEDEX/UPS were complaining that USPS had an unfair advantage because they had to fund their employees healthcare and retirement at the 80% level, but the USPS was only at 41%. Strange that the sponsors of the bill requiring 100% funding received large campaign donations from FEDEX/UPS. Futher you might check the FEDEX labor cost. FEDEX says it's higher and they don't include the costs of all the part timers they hire around christmas. USPS is has far better service than the FEDEX/UPS. At least USPS delivers the package rather then sending you an email that says come pick up your package since it couldn't be deliverd. USPS actually pays for damages to a package rather than telling you to f**k off which I ALWAYS get from UPS when UPS punctures packages
Yet another idiot. I tried to give you a simple analogy to consider and you want to show us just how smart you are. Want to show us smart you are yet you failed to mention that southern hemisphere warms at a much slower rate than the northern hemisphere because the southern hemisphere is mostly water covered and the high latent heat of water prevents the temperatures from rising as much. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU DIDN"T DENY/MENTION THAT THE PLANETS ARE NOT WARMING AS YOU CLAIM. THE PLANETS ARE MERELY EXHIBITING SEASONAL CHANGES AS I POINTED OUT. GO BACK TO LISTENING TO Rush/Beck/Hannity/Fauxnew so you cvan get a stab at talking point.
Try reading http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/ The paper is so full of holes that a freshman science major can take it apart
No he's sure and said so
Uh because it's not This is a trick question right? You know that it gets warmer on the earth when the earth moves from winter to spring right? So why should it be different when pluto warms when going from winter to spring then to summer. The temperature record for Mars is full of data gaps but what continuous records of Mars temperatures do not show a temperature increase. Please read a little about the astronomy and meteorolgoy before you repeat crap from Rush/Beck/Hannity/fauxnews
You really don't have any comprehension of what you are talking about. You believe that there is no harm/damage to telling students in a science class that there is debate among scientists whether the earth is 6000 years old or many billion, when in point of fact there is no debate, particularly when they will hear in a history class that there are chinese written record that are more than 12000 years old. There is no single mindedness WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FOOLS LIKE YOU WHO CONTINUE TO SPEW NONSENSE. DO NOT TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE TEACH CONTROVERSEY, BROADEN THE PERSON HORIZONS MEME I SUPPOSE YOU WANT TO TEACH THE CONTROVERSEY BETWEEN GRAVITY AND INTELLIGENT FALLING DOWN AS WELL RIGHT? GO BACK TO YOUR PEST HOLE
Really? Really? How can post here and not be able to read? Why not try the article in Nature or maybe the Mayo Clinic for refutation of Hadwen bullshit. More superstition rather than science.
Since the death toll from Irene turns out to be higher than the original 37 estimate (now 44), and since I should have used 5.5 for the state multiplier rather 5 and using 1.5 days, the more realistic number I still get as many dead in the hurricane as in auto accidents. The number of dead will rise as first responders get a chance to move into places in New York and Vermont that are currently inaccessible. please learn a little math
Since Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida have given us the civil war, the klan and black hole for taxes who cares? In my opinion it is shame the Sherman was limited to Georgia and didn't have tatical nukes. A lot of this country's problems would have never occurred if Sherman was able turn the cesspool of the south into glass Now the shoe is on the other foot how does it sound bhcompy? Sounds pretty stupid doesn't?
Strange, people were warned and took the necessary precautions and the loss of life was minimized and you're complaining? To use your really bad analogy: Your 142 people per day covers the entire US, extend the 37 people killed in 9 states in under 24 hours to 50 states in 24 hours. To me the 185 people dying are compareable. Try again fool!
Yet another fool who has no clue. This idiot thinks because he slept through a hurricane in florida he's a he-man. I wonder if those 125mph surface winds (175 to 200mph at about 200 feet off the ground) were pushing 1000 gallon water tanks off the roof of 40 story building into his house where he was sleeping would it have woken him up? I doubt it as he would be dead. I wonder if those 125mph surface winds (175 to 200mph at about 200 feet off the ground) were pushing 100 foot radio towers with a couple dozen microwave dishes off the roof of 40 story building into his house would it wake him up? What about 6 foot sheets of glass falling 50 stories into his house would it wake him? Probably not since he would be dead. Because this uneducated idiot hasn't figured out that the reason he can sleep through a hurricane is because is he living in a swamp that mitigates the effects of the waves and winds. He ASSUMEs (the ASS in front of U and ME) that everyone else in the world lives in the same roach infested dismal swamp that he lives in
No all that you have shown is that you haven't a clue about basic science and are parroting what you heard that matches your uninformed biased opinion. Try reading Physical Climatology by Hartmann so that you don't appear so stupid.
No we have not demonstrated anything of the sort! Rather you are the repeating bovine excrement you read on Heartland/SPPI/AEI or other denialist website. Barton (oil-OK) started this crap when he tried to discredit Gore during Gore's testimony before Congress. Unfortunately Barton, deliberately with malice of forethought, misquoted Lorius et al., 1990, and Caillon et al., 2003. Barton and everybody who repeats these lies demonstrate they do not understand basic physics or astronomy. Let's start with a small SCIENCE lesson. The earth's climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both. The answer lays partly with basic astronomy. Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23. This tilt oscillates between 22.5 and 24.5 (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession). The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. This change in the amount of incoming solar radiation (insolation) is the key to the whole process. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This change in albedo enhanced the warming due to insolation changes. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001). PLease note that the CO2 increases are related to warming of the oceans. From basic physics the specific heat of water is high thus the water warms, but the atmosphere doesn't. Every synoptic meteorology student is taught to watch for this effect when making spring temperature forecasts. Even experience forecasters get caught every now and then. The key point is the CO2 increases first due to orbital changes The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003). To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles.