And so that is what you tend to get.
Friday, November 19, 2010
On Ice
If you want to read a good bit of science journalism, the NY Times story on glaciers melting and sea levels rising in response to AGW is for you. Only problem: the piece took months of research and involved sending the reporter to Greenland, among other places. That's expensive: far easier to hand some ranter a blackberry and let 'em babble for 500 words.
And so that is what you tend to get.
And so that is what you tend to get.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
The best/funniest line from the Blatantly Obvious School of Climate Scientology.
"It was the latest in a string of troubling measurements showing that the water was warm enough to melt glaciers rapidly from below. "
Amazing. Thermodynamics works that far north. Water in a liquid state will allow water in a solid state to melt.
What's next . . . climate changes naturally?
Who needs scientists when we've got Fred?
Nicely written and illustrated article that the NYTimes is so often capable of.
But, in regard to the evidence, the article trots out the same tired and unsubstantiated claims climate exaggerators have been peddling for years.
A few quotes from the article:
But researchers have recently been startled to see big changes unfold in both Greenland and Antarctica.
Really? Such as? It is doubtful Greenland is even losing ice mass, the measured losses are so small. And the Antarctic is gaining mass.
Satellite evidence suggests that the rise of the sea accelerated late in the 20th century . . .
Did you notice the trick?
Satellite data only goes back about 16 years. Are we supposed to believe that sea level rise accelerated at *exactly* the moment we began to receive satellite data?
So far, the satellite and tidal gauge data do not reconcile. Tidal gauge data continues to show no acceleration in the sea level.
It is dishonest for climate scientists and so-called environmental reporters to keep peddling this fiction about accelerating sea-level rise by their deliberate misconstruing of the data.
The scientists have left you far behind ParulS:
"...In the area of sea level rise, science has moved along quite a bit since the last IPCC report was published in 2007 (see for example my commentary at Nature together with that of Jason Lowe and Jonathan Gregory), and Gillis shows that most of the experts now assume a considerably higher rise until 2100 than IPCC: about one meter, potentially even more. I also had to change my position on this – only a few years ago I assumed lower values, too (see for example our book Our Threatened Oceans). By now, several US states use our projections for coastal planning (e.g. California, North Carolina) and Obama’s science adviser John Holdren shows them in his presentations..."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/sea-level-rise-the-new-york-times-got-the-story/
Same old obfuscation Holly Stick.
I am not interested in what climate scientists assume, I am interested in what that they can prove.
On sea level rise, climate scientists pull a magician's trick: using one method (tidal gauges) to show a lessor rate of sea level rise and then using short term, non-reconciled satellite data to assert an acceleration in sea level rise.
Climate scientists have not demonstrated an acceleration of sea level rise in the last 15 years. For them to assert authoritavely otherwise is dishonest.
Evidence, Paul; provide some.
And how about all that ice melting in the Arctic?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html
Holly didnt you know the S stands for stupid? Paul S never provides evidence, just conjecture and talking points. Hmm maybe S means subordinate.
I didn't think either of you could provide any evidence sea level rise is accelerating. Sadly, climate scientists can't provide good evidence of it either.
Go argue with Dave, PaulStupid:
http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2010/11/by-then-we-may-be-swept-away-by-waves.html
Ive always found it funny when PaulStupid asks for proof from others. Considering this is the man who never cites anything, uses conjecture and opinion as a response and have never seen a fact or truth he liked.
Is there a word for fraud that begins with S Paul? Or maybe one that means hypocrite because by never providing citation yet demanding proof of others, you are one.
So stupid, fraudulent or hypocrite? Which one is it PaulStupid?
You can't explain why tidal gauges show no sea level
rise acceleration either, eh Gene? Seems like no warmies are willing to explain this discrepancy.
First provide a link supporting your claim that tidal gauges do not show sea level rise acceleration.
Since Paul of course has no credible source for his false statements, you can go and read about tidal gauges and other measurements showing the sea level rise acceleration.
"...Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused by local geologic processes, a favorite distraction for skeptics to highlight. Not surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account for the observed upward trend..."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
Post a Comment