Edit Preferences
Logout
Pharos's Comments (1846)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 1846
Global Warming's Impacts Have Sped Up, Worsened Since Kyoto
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 02:07:21 in Green
“That was not in peer reviewed journals. It was Newsweek as best I recall. A review of the peer reviewed literature has not discovered any such warning of an ice age. Do some research on your own, then post! (Hint, Google is your friend)”
Global Warming's Impacts Have Sped Up, Worsened Since Kyoto
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 02:04:29 in Green
“If you are interested in the truth, show one of the email statement to back your claim then show the explanation (assuming you have bothered to look it up) of the email. Then explain why you disagree with the explanation. Then we'll have something to talk about. In understanding private phone conversations, email or even snail mail, context is all important.”
Global Warming Emails: Hack Raises Ethical Questions, Hoax And Scam Claims
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 01:41:31 in Green
“You don't understand the context. It's been explained. Do you disagree with the explanation? If so explain why. Scientists are interested in exchange of ideas. A debate is not always an exchange of ideas and has little place in science.”
Global Warming Emails: Hack Raises Ethical Questions, Hoax And Scam Claims
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 01:37:14 in Green
“That is one of the beliefs of the deniers that is not visible in the emails. You have no evidence for it.”
JohnIII replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 20:56:28
“Human nature, bro. I see it everyday.”
beerguy replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 14:11:19
“Algore has made a lot of money off this hoax. I'm sure there are others as well”
Global Warming Emails: Hack Raises Ethical Questions, Hoax And Scam Claims
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 00:31:41 in Green
“I didn't click on the link because I can't understand what you are talking about. Would you like to try again and tell me what I could learn by clicking on the link?”
Global Warming Emails: Hack Raises Ethical Questions, Hoax And Scam Claims
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 00:28:54 in Green
“You are simply incorrect. If you were to read the original articles on climate science and global warming you would see that the scientists themselves have been the most cautious. There is in fact a growing feeling that climate scientists have been too cautious in interpreting the data and thus the now obvious fact that climate change is happening faster than predicted (because scientists let themselves be pressured into being too conservative in their estimates for fear of being wrong).”
Global Warming Emails: Hack Raises Ethical Questions, Hoax And Scam Claims
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 00:24:43 in Green
“Global warming is real and the measurements are consistent with the theory. Nothing in the stolen emails disproves any of the facts of global warming.”
battlez replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 16:28:36
“Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ...........I have some "green" credits to sell you........sucker!!!!!”
Global Warming Emails: Hack Raises Ethical Questions, Hoax And Scam Claims
Commented Nov 24, 2009 at 00:22:56 in Green
“What you learned in high school was not wrong and it was not science.
Data needs to be analyzed to be useful. It's a rare experiment in which measurement and model can be compared directly (at least in any field of physics I am familiar with). My data from my measurements for my dissertation looked like random noise (The signal was a million time weaker than the noise). Several times I thought I found something I was looking for. It was in fact the attempts to "manipulate" the data to enhance the structure that convinced me it was not real. I found a peak and oscillations. I was convinced the peak was real and the oscillations instrument artifact when it turned out to be the other way around.
Non scientists often have a weird view of science and how scientists work. Preconceived ideas are the norm in science and that is a good thing. Intermediate analysis to enhance data to support expected results is also perfectly acceptable. It can provide valuable suggestions for further measurements and additional theoretical work. It the final result that counts. Assumptions are also the norm. Without assumptions, no useful science is possible.”
Data needs to be analyzed to be useful. It's a rare experiment in which measurement and model can be compared directly (at least in any field of physics I am familiar with). My data from my measurements for my dissertation looked like random noise (The signal was a million time weaker than the noise). Several times I thought I found something I was looking for. It was in fact the attempts to "manipulate" the data to enhance the structure that convinced me it was not real. I found a peak and oscillations. I was convinced the peak was real and the oscillations instrument artifact when it turned out to be the other way around.
Non scientists often have a weird view of science and how scientists work. Preconceived ideas are the norm in science and that is a good thing. Intermediate analysis to enhance data to support expected results is also perfectly acceptable. It can provide valuable suggestions for further measurements and additional theoretical work. It the final result that counts. Assumptions are also the norm. Without assumptions, no useful science is possible.”
Global Warming Emails: Hack Raises Ethical Questions, Hoax And Scam Claims
Commented Nov 23, 2009 at 23:51:03 in Green
“Climate change is not secondary to atmospheric change. The two can't be separated and in fact changes to the ocean are likely to be more serious than changes to the atmosphere.”
goodspkr replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 09:18:02
“And Pharos, when the temperature rises in the oceans, what happens to the total energy balance of the planet as documented by ERBE/Ceres?”
Global Warming Emails: Hack Raises Ethical Questions, Hoax And Scam Claims
Commented Nov 23, 2009 at 23:47:39 in Green
“Your dismissal of the comment does not invalidate it. It is not credible that these private emails would be written to very carefully not mention all the conspiracies climate scientists have been accused of and yet be so careless as to make them appear at first glance to be manipulating data.
Additionally emails between colleagues are just like private conversations between friends; there is a context which must be understood to understand the conversation. Much has been made of the term "trick" but I know from personal experience I use the term all the time when teaching to mean a clever way of solving a part of a problem.
I often talk to my students about ways of manipulating data. That does not mean falsify, it means simply to pick one of several valid ways of presenting the data to highlight the desired information. When weather forecasters stress chill factors, are they trying to ignore the real temperature? Of course not. they are trying to present data in a relevant way to the listener.
A set of measurements is, in all but the simplest cases, useless without analysis. There may be changes in multiple variables during a measurement and it may not be obvious how to compensate for these changes. Discussions of how best to compensate for unknowns could easily be mistaken (by third parties) for attempts to make the data fit a preconceived idea when it is in fact not at all the case.”
Additionally emails between colleagues are just like private conversations between friends; there is a context which must be understood to understand the conversation. Much has been made of the term "trick" but I know from personal experience I use the term all the time when teaching to mean a clever way of solving a part of a problem.
I often talk to my students about ways of manipulating data. That does not mean falsify, it means simply to pick one of several valid ways of presenting the data to highlight the desired information. When weather forecasters stress chill factors, are they trying to ignore the real temperature? Of course not. they are trying to present data in a relevant way to the listener.
A set of measurements is, in all but the simplest cases, useless without analysis. There may be changes in multiple variables during a measurement and it may not be obvious how to compensate for these changes. Discussions of how best to compensate for unknowns could easily be mistaken (by third parties) for attempts to make the data fit a preconceived idea when it is in fact not at all the case.”
blueangels replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 16:00:42
“its a total fraud. it doesn't matter how private it was supposed to be. just read the emails, total lies. let's not play political games and look at the emails for what they are, a condemnation of lies.”
blueangels replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 13:42:59
“i hope you read the emails before trying to defend them as "private conversation." global warming is something that affects us all so on such a serious subject, they need to stop making jokes and address the nature of the emails. i read the emails and found them very alarming.
i dont care about the left or the right and their feud, i want the emails themselves addressed.”
i dont care about the left or the right and their feud, i want the emails themselves addressed.”
Calinative replied on Nov 24, 2009 at 11:35:29
“It's fraud and you know it. Just read the emails.”
Global Warming's Impacts Have Sped Up, Worsened Since Kyoto
Commented Nov 23, 2009 at 04:29:39 in Green
“You aee wrong. Look at the data.”
Global Warming's Impacts Have Sped Up, Worsened Since Kyoto
Commented Nov 23, 2009 at 04:29:05 in Green
“Look at the data. The average global temperature is increasing.”
restoretheconstitution replied on Nov 23, 2009 at 08:55:45
“No it's not, the leaked e-mails prove it's not but you are too naive to see it.”
UnJoe replied on Nov 23, 2009 at 06:02:21
“The trolls, the PR barkers for OPEC, Exxon, big coal, etc., along with the fundamentalists trying to run a protection racket on God, have one crippling flaw: they are liars. It's all they have left against the weight of science. The deniers' "experts" are not experts and often have no science training whatsoever. They are left with Big Lies like: temperatures are climbing so it must be cooler. Or childish Gotcha stunts: the high temperature today was one degree cooler than yesterday, so where's your global warming? They have even stooped to stealing and vandalizing the research itself. Is book burning next?.
Don't waste your lifelines on these people.”
Don't waste your lifelines on these people.”
Why I'm Joining The Hopenhagen Movement
Commented Oct 31, 2009 at 04:03:56 in Green
“No one is suggesting that. There is a need to control the impact of human activity on climate.”
fumes replied on Nov 01, 2009 at 08:47:03
“then stop exponential human breeding..
and choose who breeds and who doesn't.”
and choose who breeds and who doesn't.”
Why I'm Joining The Hopenhagen Movement
Commented Oct 31, 2009 at 03:59:57 in Green
“We all agree water vapor accounts for most of the warming of the planet. What's your point?”
fumes replied on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:46:49
“it's not dependent on CO2.”
Why I'm Joining The Hopenhagen Movement
Commented Oct 31, 2009 at 03:54:12 in Green
“Climate is defined as an average over 30 years. Variations from year to year say nothing about climate change or average global temperature changes. When the global temperature data is averaged and plotted, it is clear the average temperature is increasing.
As many of us keep pointing out:
Local is not the same as global; climate is not the same as weather.
Weather is like tossing a coin. We can't predict the outcome of a few tosses very well. Climate is like tossing a coin a million times. We can predict that outcome quite precisely.”
As many of us keep pointing out:
Local is not the same as global; climate is not the same as weather.
Weather is like tossing a coin. We can't predict the outcome of a few tosses very well. Climate is like tossing a coin a million times. We can predict that outcome quite precisely.”
Norpag replied on Oct 31, 2009 at 13:49:21
“Pharos - As earth cools , statements such as yours are the last refuge of the AGW faithful. Cooling is always referred to as weather but anything else is evidence of CO2 warming. Your definition of climate as a 30 year average is a fiction. . Google - Hadley Cru - look at the black line on their temperature graphs in the top right hand corner. This 5 year moving average curve clearly turns over about 2002 - 3 .
Your notion that climate models are like a coin toss and that climate can be precisely predicted is simply ludicrous. Climate is the result of the complex interaction of many variables.. There are complex resonances between cycles of various lengths. The 100,000, 41,000 and 23,000 yr Milankovitch earth orbital cycles. for example. Then there are cycles of solar activity and related cosmic ray inflow. The 11, 22 , 200 and approximate 1000 yr cycles are well documented. These all resonate with each other and with the lunar - 18.6 year declination cycle affecting the ocean currents. Additionly there are changes in the earths magnetic field and heat flow .
Until we understand these natural cycles better we can't begin to calculate the effect of anthropegenic CO2 with any accuracy .We can say that it is small and decreases with increasing CO2 because the CO2 sensitivity equation is logarithmic.
The notion that we can control climate by controlling anthropgenic CO2 is the equivalent of primitive societies throwing virgins into lakes to”
Your notion that climate models are like a coin toss and that climate can be precisely predicted is simply ludicrous. Climate is the result of the complex interaction of many variables.. There are complex resonances between cycles of various lengths. The 100,000, 41,000 and 23,000 yr Milankovitch earth orbital cycles. for example. Then there are cycles of solar activity and related cosmic ray inflow. The 11, 22 , 200 and approximate 1000 yr cycles are well documented. These all resonate with each other and with the lunar - 18.6 year declination cycle affecting the ocean currents. Additionly there are changes in the earths magnetic field and heat flow .
Until we understand these natural cycles better we can't begin to calculate the effect of anthropegenic CO2 with any accuracy .We can say that it is small and decreases with increasing CO2 because the CO2 sensitivity equation is logarithmic.
The notion that we can control climate by controlling anthropgenic CO2 is the equivalent of primitive societies throwing virgins into lakes to”
Jim Inhofe Abandoned By Fellow Republicans In Anti-Earth Crusade
Commented Oct 30, 2009 at 02:23:27 in Politics
“I don't think so. Look up the definition of climate. Not that it will do any good but you could also try to look up the definitions of global and local. Most people don't use the words interchangeably.
Figured out how a barometer works yet?”
Figured out how a barometer works yet?”
Publicola replied on Nov 01, 2009 at 09:56:59
“I already answered your first pointless question, fumes - here's that answer again:
-----------------------------------
What a "forcing agent" means in in the context of global warming is an agent that initiates global warming; water vapor does not do that.
When a global warming forcing agent - such as increased atmospheric CO2 - raises the mean global temperature that in turn induces higher water vapor concentrations, which, since water vapor too is a greenhouse gas, in turn induces still more warming in a positive feedback loop until thermal equilibrium is reached - which in a global sense won't happen while global warming forcing agents continues to significant;y increase.
On the other hand if one takes away or reduces global warming forcing agents then water vapor concentrations will be reduced accordingly as well.
-----------------------------------
You do understand the concept of "thermal equilibrium" - don't you?
With respect to your second pointless question - you've asked it repeatedly now, as if you've actually got a valid point to make this time (unlike with respect to your previous questions for example about the desert sky, why does the boiling point of water with altitude, and your "q1" question this time.) You are capable of answering that one yourself... aren't you?
In any event here's a hint for you: greenhouse gases account for about 33C in the earth's mean global temperature, and atmospheric CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas.
Hope this helps.”
-----------------------------------
What a "forcing agent" means in in the context of global warming is an agent that initiates global warming; water vapor does not do that.
When a global warming forcing agent - such as increased atmospheric CO2 - raises the mean global temperature that in turn induces higher water vapor concentrations, which, since water vapor too is a greenhouse gas, in turn induces still more warming in a positive feedback loop until thermal equilibrium is reached - which in a global sense won't happen while global warming forcing agents continues to significant;y increase.
On the other hand if one takes away or reduces global warming forcing agents then water vapor concentrations will be reduced accordingly as well.
-----------------------------------
You do understand the concept of "thermal equilibrium" - don't you?
With respect to your second pointless question - you've asked it repeatedly now, as if you've actually got a valid point to make this time (unlike with respect to your previous questions for example about the desert sky, why does the boiling point of water with altitude, and your "q1" question this time.) You are capable of answering that one yourself... aren't you?
In any event here's a hint for you: greenhouse gases account for about 33C in the earth's mean global temperature, and atmospheric CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas.
Hope this helps.”
fumes replied on Oct 31, 2009 at 16:06:15
“define: ''the real truth'' lol
q1- when and where is water vapor not self-forcing?
q2- what's the temp at the equator w/o CO2?”
q1- when and where is water vapor not self-forcing?
q2- what's the temp at the equator w/o CO2?”
whatbox replied on Oct 30, 2009 at 13:28:01
“Publicola, I think the answer to your question is "willful ignorance". Some people just don't want to get to the real truth.”
Publicola replied on Oct 30, 2009 at 11:08:12
“BTW my previous comment was directed at you, fumes.
In any event the simple, first-order answer to your misleading question is lower atmospheric pressure.”
In any event the simple, first-order answer to your misleading question is lower atmospheric pressure.”
Publicola replied on Oct 30, 2009 at 10:50:56
“Seriously - you are still having trouble understanding the difference between climate and weather why?”
fumes replied on Oct 30, 2009 at 08:19:52
“seriously..
you're still having trouble with that one why?
lol pharos.. boil some water at sea level some time..
no really.. then go into the mountains and repeat.
notice any difference? now explain why the difference!”
you're still having trouble with that one why?
lol pharos.. boil some water at sea level some time..
no really.. then go into the mountains and repeat.
notice any difference? now explain why the difference!”
Jim Inhofe Abandoned By Fellow Republicans In Anti-Earth Crusade
Commented Oct 30, 2009 at 02:16:22 in Politics
“When you have lost the argument, attack Al Gore. Not sure I understand what Al Gore has to do with Global Warming but your tactic seems to be pretty common.”
DocSkull replied on Oct 30, 2009 at 16:15:43
“They hate "do-gooders" most of all.”
Jim Inhofe Abandoned By Fellow Republicans In Anti-Earth Crusade
Commented Oct 30, 2009 at 02:12:43 in Politics
“Global warming is an experimentally verified fact. Look at the data. Climate models are based on physics and have as much in common with science as physics has in common with science.
You don't understand climate, you don't understand models and you don't understand science. I would also like to know how many scientists feel they have any power? Mostly I think we feel ignored.
Personally I feel there is an increasingly strong anti-intellectual movement in this country resulting in less respect and understanding of science.
"The very idea of a science czar is Stalinist" - I guess you mean the President should not have a science adviser? Just how should the President (who is not a scientist) make decisions?”
You don't understand climate, you don't understand models and you don't understand science. I would also like to know how many scientists feel they have any power? Mostly I think we feel ignored.
Personally I feel there is an increasingly strong anti-intellectual movement in this country resulting in less respect and understanding of science.
"The very idea of a science czar is Stalinist" - I guess you mean the President should not have a science adviser? Just how should the President (who is not a scientist) make decisions?”
George Will Makes "World's Worst Persons" For 7th Climate Change-Denying Column This Year (VIDEO)
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 13:16:04 in Media
“Why would it be widespread? The authors published a correction shortly after publishing the original. Scientists make mistakes. Over time the mistakes are corrected - that's what makes science so powerful. If your criteria for believing science is that no scientist ever make a mistake, then yes, you should ignore scientists because that will never happen.
BTW you are selectively quoting from the articles in such a way as to create a false impression. Why do you also not quote from the correction to the paper by the authors?”
BTW you are selectively quoting from the articles in such a way as to create a false impression. Why do you also not quote from the correction to the paper by the authors?”
George Will Makes "World's Worst Persons" For 7th Climate Change-Denying Column This Year (VIDEO)
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 05:56:39 in Media
“I looked at the first one, I assume the second one is the same nonsense. It's all been discussed over and over.
As I've tried to explain before, all science is an approximation. We can't analytically solve the classical three body problem, how can we possibly solve a problem involving as many atoms and molecules as there are in the atmosphere without approximations? These approximations are not just random tweaking of a parameter in an equation to match a result.
I understand very little of what you say and the little I understand is just plain wrong.
If one wants to understand the impact of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, why would anyone put into a model anything besides increasing CO2?”
As I've tried to explain before, all science is an approximation. We can't analytically solve the classical three body problem, how can we possibly solve a problem involving as many atoms and molecules as there are in the atmosphere without approximations? These approximations are not just random tweaking of a parameter in an equation to match a result.
I understand very little of what you say and the little I understand is just plain wrong.
If one wants to understand the impact of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, why would anyone put into a model anything besides increasing CO2?”
George Will Makes "World's Worst Persons" For 7th Climate Change-Denying Column This Year (VIDEO)
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 05:30:09 in Media
“I guess you didn't understand my comment. Who was the first person to point out that the professor's conclusions were wrong and why they were wrong and to even publish it in a peer reviewed journal? Look it up and then tell me your post was appropriate.”
George Will Makes "World's Worst Persons" For 7th Climate Change-Denying Column This Year (VIDEO)
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 04:30:45 in Media
“The ire is not directed at those who honestly question, but rather at those who question, receive and answer and then pose the question over and over as if it had never been answered. When one tires to pin down the issue, the deniers fail to respond and then later come back and start all over again.
I tried to start a conversation about greenhouse gases and why the Earth was not colder. One person came back and said no one questions the greenhouse effect, another said if it was so simple then I should show the math as if they didn't believe that water vapor was the largest contributor to warming the planet (It's everywhere on the Web and in every text on climate science). When I seem to be getting to the point of identifying that the issue is that everyone agrees that GW is true but that it is the human factor that is not clear, then some one jumps in again with "CO2 causes cooling, it's not a greenhouse gas"
There are people here who legitimately want to understand and ask reasonable questions and are grateful for the answer. Every time one of those conversations starts up, the deniers jump in and derail the conversation with bogus questions.”
I tried to start a conversation about greenhouse gases and why the Earth was not colder. One person came back and said no one questions the greenhouse effect, another said if it was so simple then I should show the math as if they didn't believe that water vapor was the largest contributor to warming the planet (It's everywhere on the Web and in every text on climate science). When I seem to be getting to the point of identifying that the issue is that everyone agrees that GW is true but that it is the human factor that is not clear, then some one jumps in again with "CO2 causes cooling, it's not a greenhouse gas"
There are people here who legitimately want to understand and ask reasonable questions and are grateful for the answer. Every time one of those conversations starts up, the deniers jump in and derail the conversation with bogus questions.”
George Will Makes "World's Worst Persons" For 7th Climate Change-Denying Column This Year (VIDEO)
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 04:12:49 in Media
“What makes you think there are two types of science?”
George Will Makes "World's Worst Persons" For 7th Climate Change-Denying Column This Year (VIDEO)
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 04:11:06 in Media
“Every right wing think tank would pour money into their "research" They would actually have more funding. Try again.”
George Will Makes "World's Worst Persons" For 7th Climate Change-Denying Column This Year (VIDEO)
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 03:40:52 in Media
“You need to put numbers and equations .to your statements. Once you do that you will find you are wrong.”
1 - 25 of 1846
