The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A climate model for every season > Comments

A climate model for every season : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 25/9/2009

Scientists really have no idea what drives climate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 27
  7. 28
  8. 29
  9. Page 30
  10. 31
  11. All
Yes, why are the oceans warming, and what is causing that increased warmth?

Eclipse Now, I have looked at the video about oil you referred to in an earlier post, excellent sound effects/music and very interesting.

My response? I see science generalizing by considering algae is plankton. When I went to school there was animal, mineral and vegetable. In the ocean making films I see algae is vegetable matter and that plankton is animal life.

I have observed a very significant increase in algae/vegetable matter but have not observed any increase of plankton/animal life.

I think lack of clarity (and reality) about the difference between algae and plankton and impact of each is a likely reason IPCC science is missing impact of algae.

In my opinion algae has gone unseen as matter absorbing solar heat and transferring that heat from one part of the ocean to another.
Posted by JF Aus, Friday, 30 October 2009 7:41:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How many tons of extra algae are there compared to normal algae? What does the algae actually DO with the incoming solar energy? Where is it interrupting the normal heat exchanges in the ocean and how is it leading to warming?

According to "Crude", the algae is absorbing Co2, dying, and eventually taking it to the bottom of the ocean, and is therefore lowering the greenhouse problem, not increasing it. You're entitled to your opinion, but until the questions above are answered and measured against the peer review process, I'm not buying it.

meanwhile, Scientific American has an article about yet another study confirming the hockey stick.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever&sc=CAT_ENGYSUS_20091029
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 30 October 2009 11:30:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse

<< The oceans are not so much being heated by greenhouse gases, but inhibited in their cooling. Is that how you read it Q&A? >>

No.

Click all the links for ‘climate science’ 101 (not all students pass)
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/syllabus.html

Graham must be busy (and I see Mark/Curmud/Curmudathome is also lurking) so I will bounce this off you:
Graham said to you:

<< As a result of Steve McIntyre's most recent work you have to discard those datasets for the time being. It appears that the data on which they are based is not representative. Joanne Nova has the best explanation ...”

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/breaking-news-cherry-picking-of-historic-proportions/

Posted elsewhere but pertinent in response (Graham);

"Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples’ results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ‘truth’.

There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies.

What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct.

Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations (Graham) and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review?

He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast (Graham) in the blogosphere and mainstream media, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered (Graham).

Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results.”

McIntyre and his followers don’t do this.

This is what Keith Briffa has to say about the denialosphere’s distortion, misrepresentation and “flame” (Graham).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 30 October 2009 6:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yoooohoooo? Graham? Why ARE the oceans warming (if the 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids it?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3dYhC_AlYw&feature=sdig&et=1256918165.19
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 31 October 2009 6:33:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Away for a week or so.

Eclipse, the ocean is a huge heat sink, they are generally warming but not as much as you might think. Josh Willis has a very good take on it but as per usual, the 'doubters' distort and misrepresent his findings ... so much so they claim him as one of their own. Hilarious, really.

I'll be interested in what Graham has to say about Keith Briffa's response to the ludicrous claims in the 'denialosphere', including that by Nova, Marohasy, Watts et al. Heck, even Graham Young appears to be supporting them in batting for McIntyre's life's quest.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 31 October 2009 7:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the link Q&A. I for one remain unmoved by Briffa's defence at least insofar as the data diddling has me any more convinced of the certainty with which such research has achieved its predetermined agenda of eliminating the troublesome MWP. It seems to be very much still in the speculative enquiry stage with plenty of healthy skepticism and scrutiny. Oh, and there's no distortion and misrepresentation in the alarmosphere, eh?

Eclipse, you're a nice bloke, delighting in my imminent demise some time this century. I'd say it's probably a certainty but who knows - life expectancy is increasing rapidly. And courageous too, dissing Graham from behind a mask of anonymity. I see you've acknowledged your issues, but as yet not addressed them, but I understand it would be a long process. When they're not laughable, your posts are rationally and heuristically vacuous.
Posted by whitmus, Saturday, 31 October 2009 2:38:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 27
  7. 28
  8. 29
  9. Page 30
  10. 31
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy