Posts by SteveH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Comments from the British Met office:
None of which supports the idea that what the HadCRUT dataset is showing is a real, long term slowing of the warming trend. In both answers they essentially blamed short term trends. So I will reiterate my point again: the idea that global warming has slowed to 0.03 deg C per decade is not supported by any reasonable analysis of the data.
I hope the emphasis you added to the second answer doesn't indicate that you think that research should be ignored just because it is ongoing.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
As you probably know the rate of increase in G.Av. T. has slowed to 0.03 deg. C. /decade for the period beginning 1997 to the present. (Had Crut)
It is by no means clear that the rate of increase in global average temperature has slowed to 0.03 deg C per decade. There are several problems with that analysis as covered here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
When ocean warming is included rather than just surface temperatures there is no indication that warming has slowed. At least two papers have shown this.
The other global temperature records (NASA and NCDC) also don't show a reduced warming rate to anywhere near the same extent as HadCRUT3. It appears HadCRUT3 may have a sampling bias in that some of the areas that appear to be warming the fastest (e.g. the Arctic, Canada, Russia) are poorly covered.
And it appears that recent warming has been masked by short term variations due ENSO, volcanism and solar irradiance. Foster and Rahmstorf's 2011 paper attempted to removed those short term effects and came to the conclusion that "there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade... It is worthy of note that for all five adjusted data sets, 2009 and 2010 are the two hottest years on record....All five data sets show statistically significant warming even for the time span from 2000 to the present." Their paper shows continued warming of about 0.15 deg C per decade.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Sorry, that was a reference to the fact that we only have 30 years of satellite data, which is considered very reliable.
There is the thing about our short records. The climate rolls in a 60 year cycle where temperatures warm for 30 years then cool for thirty years, so getting 27 years of above average temperatures would be — not unusual.One more. http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to DexterX,
The troll label here is very Key like in hat it is uneasonable dismissive
When someone rolls out tired and thoroughly debunked arguments it is hard not to suspect that they are simply trolling. Perhaps it is unreasonably dismissive. I think it is more simply frustration.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
I submit extracts from recent letters to a NZ weekly , written by a very respected scientist :-
As others have pointed out, he is a respected physicist. There is no evidence that he has any more expertise in climatology than I have. Would you also accept his opinions on say neurology as relevant?
“The globally averaged surface temperature peaked in 1998, and has been on a slight downward trend since then. If recent history has any lesson, it is that this trend will not change until 2025, and maybe even later if the current low solar activity persists."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
Although Arctic sea ice is at a recent minimum, Antarctic sea ice is at a recent maximum. This is at a time when CO2 emissions continue to rise faster than ever; proof that man-made CO2 is at best weakly coupled to the climate.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-intermediate.htm”. . . there is a significant challenge to the strength of the AGW hypothesis appearing in the mainstream scientific literature in recent months, in favour of the role of the sun.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
Farmer Green has been keeping abreast of the emerging science and finds nothing to dispute in either of these excerpts.
You have not looked very hard at all if you have seen nothing to dispute those excerpts.
-
Happy Birthday Hard News and PAS! And a big thank you to you Russell!
-
Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Well I don’t do any of those things but I understand that the People vote for a bunch of other people (the electoral college) to do the actual vote for them and they don’t necessarily have to follow the Peoples choice, although I don’t think they have gone the other way in recent history. A safeguard to stop the People electing somebody who won’t do as they’re told I suppose.
About half the states have laws that punish faithless electors.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
ACT is parasitic on National at this point; it wasn’t always, but the debilitating effect of reliance on the one seat threshold, and National’s largesse in handing it a seat did it in.
I think it was more symbiotic than parasitic. National needed the extra seat that letting ACT take Epsom provided. And of course ACT needed the electorate seat as they were never getting 5%. Of course now it looks like ACT won't even get that seat so I expect National will be fully contesting it next election.
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Paul Williams,
<threadjack>And why is there no bumblebees in Australia, clearly they can’t fly very far…</threadjack>
Actually one of the reasons Australia wants to keep bumblebees out is that they can out compete native solitary bees because they can fly a lot further. Bumblebees can forage up to 4km from their nest compared to as little a few hundred metres for some native species.
There actually are bumblebees in Australia - they were accidentally introduced to Tasmania in the 1990s. They are widespread there. So far they haven't become established on the mainland.
Bumblebees were deliberately introduced in New Zealand around 1900 specifically to pollinate red clover.
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
According to physicists, bumblebees can’t fly. And yet every day, oblivious to the theoretical laws under which they are impossible, millions of them get about and do just that.
That’s a myth, Lew, folklore that appeals to some people’s prejudice against experts. It's usually used to discount some other point a scientist is making ("yeah, well, scientists also say bumblebees can't fly"). No one has ever seriously stated that bumblebees can’t fly or shouldn’t be able to fly. People have noted that certain simplified models of aerodynamics don’t work for bumblebees (and indeed many other insects).