...but I wonder if it had anything to do with this. Perhaps the asteroid has passed this way before and was broken into smaller chunks by gravity. Would be interesting to see if someone could figure out the fireballs tragectory.
"On the other hand, new ice/snow (last 5 years or so) has actually grown in thickness."
This has been observed for snow in some specific regions, in particular above 3000ft in Greenland. Interestingly increased snow fall at high altitudes was predicted by the much maligned climate models, unfortunately the prevaling theory is that this will increase the velocity of glaciers.
I'm not aware of any data or even a theory that suggests increased thickness of sea ice, do you have a link? (not attacking you, just interested).
Sorry but the top gear episode was a 'real adventure'. You are right about the weight and if you watch the episode you will see they had some 'adventure' with that particular problem. The TG crew were the first to drive to the magnetic NP not the geographic NP, overall a much shorter and less risky trip but still an adventure IMHO.
Geezzzussss, some people just have to be 'right' no matter what.
You called the article BS and implied the OP was gullible. You were then corrected by an informative post from someone who has actually done something similar. Continuing to defend your position with all sorts of irrelevant arguments is just plain arrogance.
"You will not find information that disagrees with Michael Mann there"
Actually I have found such arguments and the other opinions section is worth a second look. In this post on the hockey stick contraversy he points directly to McIntyre and McKitrick who were/are his most believable critics. Their criticisims culminated in a senate enquiry to "verify the claims" in his original hockey stick paper. Psuedo-skeptics the world over jumped on and grossly misrepresented the NAS testimony in the mistaken belief that if they debunked the hockey stick everything else would fall apart. Mann has since published a follow up study.
"it's more of an activist site"
I agree they do spend an inordinate amount of time debunking repoters such as George Will.
The meat of the NAS testimony that psuedo-skeptics never actually point to...
our reservations with some aspects of the original papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue to warm, as a result of human activities.
Anyway I've enjoyed this lively disscusion with a genuine skeptic but it is now 1:30 in the morning here and way past the bedtime of this old fart.
"At that point my bullshit detector went into overdrive, and I started looking if there were more scientists that don't agree with this 'the science is settled'."
I don't blame you one bit, science it's never "settled", that is what seperates it from all other philosphy and religion. I do not belive in geo-engineering as a solution, I belive uncontrolled geo-engineering is warming the planet and think that the IPCC SPM-4 gives a conservative estimate of what the effects may be, I say conservative because that is what I would expect from some 2500 experts representing the reputations of virtual every national science body on the planet coming to a "consensus" once every four years.
I am not a climatologist either but I have followed the science for at least 25yrs, every one of them as a skeptic. The "best science" we have says that we need to reduce our CO2 emmisions from the current ~10Gt/yr to ~3Gt/yr and that we have ~50yrs to do that. If you don't read any other link that I have posted please check out the list of "myths" many of which are actually half-truths. There is an increadible amount of FUD and politics surrounding this subject so by no means am I asking you to turn off your bullshit detector, it's just that the list gives a good starting point for your skeptical enquiries.
On the subject of super-computer models, they are no more or less useful for studying climate than any other physical phenomena and they certainly don't prove anything (AFAIK proof is confined to axiomonic systems such as maths). What they can do is make predictions that are testable and open up lines of enquiry, an example of which is "polar amplification". These finite-element models are capable of producing very good historical reconstructions. Unfortunately it's not easy to grasp this from numerical outputs but the people at Japan's Earth simulator have provided this visual reconstruction of a single year in an effort to demonstarte their capabilities (scroll down a bit for the embedded movie). I can't speak with as much confidence for the rest of the planet but as a long time observer of the weather patterns around Australia I can say that they are remakably accuarate right down to the hurricanes that emerge from the model in the right places at the right time of year.
Please, the cosmic ray flux (otherwise known as the Iris theory) sufferers from one very fundemental flaw, there has been no discernable trend in cosmic ray over the 3-4 decades we have been measuring them. I again point you to the Hadley center where they specifically refer to it, you may also want to try realclimate.org who do an excellent job of pulling it apart.
Although you haven't asked I will point out that the IPCC states with a 95% level certainty that humans are responsible for greater than 50% of the observed warming, the rest is taken up by the uncertainties in some of the things you have mentioned. As a physicist you will rtecognise imperfect does not mean useless.
Yes I belive you without the need to check the link, there is also a very low LOSU on clouds. This is what is known as intellectual honesty, it's also why the wide error bars appear on the graph.
"So don't mind me if I don't take all these "it can't be the sun" arguments very seriously."
I was hoping for some real skepticisim on your part but if you want to accept the simplistic "it's the sun" argument as debunking all of climatology when you already know there is a low LOSU, that is your perogative.
"Similarly for the last 10 years or so, where the temperature also has not risen while we were pumping out CO2 at an increasing rate.
Sorry that is another myth based on cherry-picking 1998 (the hottest year on record) as a starting point. The fact is that the hottest 10yrs on record have all occured in the last 10yrs. You seem perfectly knowlegable on how to find things so I will let you examine the data at the Hadley center yourself and check my assertion. If I am wrong about this please point to the dataset you are using.
"What do I care about George Will, he's just a reporter."
Exactly, I only mentioned him because the link referenced by the GP was ranting about George Will.
"the Mythbusters have busted this whole sugar in tank myth."
Thanks. No really, I pride myself on the skill of scientific skepticisim and I have learned something from you about sugar in the tank that I didn't know. I will be more carefull with my slashdot car analogies in the future. In an effort to redeem my geek credientials I will repay your genuinely appreciated mythbusting in kind with the following...
"Did you all know the sun is going into a magnetically very quiet period?"
Yes, early last year the 11yr sun spot cycle was indeed out of wack with historical records and AFAIK nobody has a clue why. However climatologists have already accounted for historical measurements of solar irradience. For further information on the data, methods and findings behind the radiative forcings portrayed in that graph have a look here. For a more reader-friendly general overview check here. If you don't like the IPCC or WP then you could always try the USGS
"We will know within a few years if the sun is the more important climate driver or CO2."
The physics that underpins the greenhouse effect has been known for ~180yrs. As can be seen from the link it was "discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in the year 1858 and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper". Future hypothisized variations in the sun's output may indeed affect the climate but it won't make the observed effects of our greenhouse gasses and areosols disappear, the only thing that can do that is a radical rewrite of fundemental physics and chemistry.
You may also want to check out a list of common climate myths that do not so much debunk George Will as inform you of the things he is forgets to tell you, coincidently they rank the "it's the sun" myth at the top of the list.
Slashdot Mirror
Good points. Military Radar if (say) NASA asked politely?
Thank you captain obvious
Thanks, was a WTF moment for me as you can see by my other reply.
"For some, increased transparency is a good thing. For others, it may prove more a hindrance."
Agreed! Censorship cuts both ways, it's pointless to blame others for you're inability to self-censor.
Don't who said it but: "Principles are expensive, I try to have as few as possible".
Yes and if Pluto ever looks under Goofy's hat and finds his stash of supergoobers, Mickey is in deep shit. (god that makes me feel old!)
...but I wonder if it had anything to do with this. Perhaps the asteroid has passed this way before and was broken into smaller chunks by gravity. Would be interesting to see if someone could figure out the fireballs tragectory.
"On the other hand, new ice/snow (last 5 years or so) has actually grown in thickness."
This has been observed for snow in some specific regions, in particular above 3000ft in Greenland. Interestingly increased snow fall at high altitudes was predicted by the much maligned climate models, unfortunately the prevaling theory is that this will increase the velocity of glaciers.
I'm not aware of any data or even a theory that suggests increased thickness of sea ice, do you have a link? (not attacking you, just interested).
No it would be area X thickness, assuming thickness is reasonably uniform.
Parent AC is a climate troll, possibly George Will from the WSJ, but who knows.
Unfortunately some of the crew ate the livers. Vitamin A poisioning causes ones "skin to fall off", OUCH!
"As far as I know, the Arctic is a pretty deep ocean, why not survey the ice from the bottom?"
Expense. However there are some historical records from the sonar on military subs.
Sorry but the top gear episode was a 'real adventure'. You are right about the weight and if you watch the episode you will see they had some 'adventure' with that particular problem. The TG crew were the first to drive to the magnetic NP not the geographic NP, overall a much shorter and less risky trip but still an adventure IMHO.
Geezzzussss, some people just have to be 'right' no matter what.
You called the article BS and implied the OP was gullible. You were then corrected by an informative post from someone who has actually done something similar. Continuing to defend your position with all sorts of irrelevant arguments is just plain arrogance.
Gday Bart, I keep my promises, please read and comment.
"Anyway, I will read the link you mentioned, if you promise me you'll read the arxiv.org link to Nir Shaviv"
Deal.
NAS testimony, Mann's post.
"You will not find information that disagrees with Michael Mann there"
Actually I have found such arguments and the other opinions section is worth a second look. In this post on the hockey stick contraversy he points directly to McIntyre and McKitrick who were/are his most believable critics. Their criticisims culminated in a senate enquiry to "verify the claims" in his original hockey stick paper. Psuedo-skeptics the world over jumped on and grossly misrepresented the NAS testimony in the mistaken belief that if they debunked the hockey stick everything else would fall apart. Mann has since published a follow up study.
"it's more of an activist site"
I agree they do spend an inordinate amount of time debunking repoters such as George Will.
The meat of the NAS testimony that psuedo-skeptics never actually point to...
our reservations with some aspects of the original papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue to warm, as a result of human activities.
Anyway I've enjoyed this lively disscusion with a genuine skeptic but it is now 1:30 in the morning here and way past the bedtime of this old fart.
"At that point my bullshit detector went into overdrive, and I started looking if there were more scientists that don't agree with this 'the science is settled'."
I don't blame you one bit, science it's never "settled", that is what seperates it from all other philosphy and religion. I do not belive in geo-engineering as a solution, I belive uncontrolled geo-engineering is warming the planet and think that the IPCC SPM-4 gives a conservative estimate of what the effects may be, I say conservative because that is what I would expect from some 2500 experts representing the reputations of virtual every national science body on the planet coming to a "consensus" once every four years.
I am not a climatologist either but I have followed the science for at least 25yrs, every one of them as a skeptic. The "best science" we have says that we need to reduce our CO2 emmisions from the current ~10Gt/yr to ~3Gt/yr and that we have ~50yrs to do that. If you don't read any other link that I have posted please check out the list of "myths" many of which are actually half-truths. There is an increadible amount of FUD and politics surrounding this subject so by no means am I asking you to turn off your bullshit detector, it's just that the list gives a good starting point for your skeptical enquiries.
On the subject of super-computer models, they are no more or less useful for studying climate than any other physical phenomena and they certainly don't prove anything (AFAIK proof is confined to axiomonic systems such as maths). What they can do is make predictions that are testable and open up lines of enquiry, an example of which is "polar amplification". These finite-element models are capable of producing very good historical reconstructions. Unfortunately it's not easy to grasp this from numerical outputs but the people at Japan's Earth simulator have provided this visual reconstruction of a single year in an effort to demonstarte their capabilities (scroll down a bit for the embedded movie). I can't speak with as much confidence for the rest of the planet but as a long time observer of the weather patterns around Australia I can say that they are remakably accuarate right down to the hurricanes that emerge from the model in the right places at the right time of year.
Please, the cosmic ray flux (otherwise known as the Iris theory) sufferers from one very fundemental flaw, there has been no discernable trend in cosmic ray over the 3-4 decades we have been measuring them. I again point you to the Hadley center where they specifically refer to it, you may also want to try realclimate.org who do an excellent job of pulling it apart.
Although you haven't asked I will point out that the IPCC states with a 95% level certainty that humans are responsible for greater than 50% of the observed warming, the rest is taken up by the uncertainties in some of the things you have mentioned. As a physicist you will rtecognise imperfect does not mean useless.
Yes I belive you without the need to check the link, there is also a very low LOSU on clouds. This is what is known as intellectual honesty, it's also why the wide error bars appear on the graph.
"So don't mind me if I don't take all these "it can't be the sun" arguments very seriously."
I was hoping for some real skepticisim on your part but if you want to accept the simplistic "it's the sun" argument as debunking all of climatology when you already know there is a low LOSU, that is your perogative.
The fact is that the hottest 10yrs on record have all occured in the last 12yrs.
"Similarly for the last 10 years or so, where the temperature also has not risen while we were pumping out CO2 at an increasing rate.
Sorry that is another myth based on cherry-picking 1998 (the hottest year on record) as a starting point. The fact is that the hottest 10yrs on record have all occured in the last 10yrs. You seem perfectly knowlegable on how to find things so I will let you examine the data at the Hadley center yourself and check my assertion. If I am wrong about this please point to the dataset you are using.
"What do I care about George Will, he's just a reporter."
Exactly, I only mentioned him because the link referenced by the GP was ranting about George Will.
"the Mythbusters have busted this whole sugar in tank myth."
Thanks. No really, I pride myself on the skill of scientific skepticisim and I have learned something from you about sugar in the tank that I didn't know. I will be more carefull with my slashdot car analogies in the future. In an effort to redeem my geek credientials I will repay your genuinely appreciated mythbusting in kind with the following...
"Did you all know the sun is going into a magnetically very quiet period?"
Yes, early last year the 11yr sun spot cycle was indeed out of wack with historical records and AFAIK nobody has a clue why. However climatologists have already accounted for historical measurements of solar irradience. For further information on the data, methods and findings behind the radiative forcings portrayed in that graph have a look here. For a more reader-friendly general overview check here. If you don't like the IPCC or WP then you could always try the USGS
"We will know within a few years if the sun is the more important climate driver or CO2."
The physics that underpins the greenhouse effect has been known for ~180yrs. As can be seen from the link it was "discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in the year 1858 and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper". Future hypothisized variations in the sun's output may indeed affect the climate but it won't make the observed effects of our greenhouse gasses and areosols disappear, the only thing that can do that is a radical rewrite of fundemental physics and chemistry.
You may also want to check out a list of common climate myths that do not so much debunk George Will as inform you of the things he is forgets to tell you, coincidently they rank the "it's the sun" myth at the top of the list.
"I went a little off into the deep end..."
Dude, you have been off in deep end ever since I have known you. The myth I am refering to was about science, not your nonsensical political rants.