Send a Message
to The Integral

Comments

93

Joined

Aug 9, 2013

The Integral Profile

Recent Posts

Global Warming

Sanders: Climate Change more Menacing than Terrorism

Sanders makes a fundamental point. Every dollar that is added to the GDP is a dollar that is taken away from the value of the environment.  (Oct 21, 2013 | post #2)

Global Warming

Expert: We must act fast on warming

That explains why you are so clueless.  (Sep 22, 2013 | post #27274)

Global Warming

Steve King: Global Warming 'More Of A Religion Than A Sci...

Here it is: http://www.realcli mate.org/index.php /archives/2013/03/ response-by-marcot t-et-al/  (Sep 2, 2013 | post #90)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

You should look at this graph very carefully: http://data.giss.n asa.gov/gistemp/gr aphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif As you can see there are periods of temperature increase and temperature decrease. To say that the period of temperature decrease in the 50s meant an end to global warming is absurd. It is the physical properties of CO2 that drives the scientific consensus. It isn't going to go away.  (Aug 29, 2013 | post #38620)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

Ah, you knuckle dragging moron. Did you bother to read the entire article, or did you just read the headline? Xie said: "We don't know precisely when we're going to come out of [the hiatus] but we know that over the timescale of several decades, the climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." Which school did you go to that that a mini-ice age was coming? A school that used Time magazine as a textbook? If you actually believe that short term trends are more important than long term trends it only proves that you have no scientific background whatsoever. Apparently you feel that it is OK to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into "defense " - more that the next thirteen countries combined - but it is not OK to try and save the environment for future generations.  (Aug 29, 2013 | post #38609)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

OK. The IPCC consensus style models have problems. The fine Nature analysis of John Fyfe, Nathan Gillett, and Francis Zwiers strikingly illuminates the distinction between weak, mediocre, and strong climate-change science: ▷ Weak Climate Science Purely statistical models that presuppose the existence of “cycles” (commonly solar cycles and/or ocean-current cycles); also ad hoc models that ascribe climate-change to (e.g.) fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity. In summary, speculative climate-change science. ▷ Mediocre Climate Science Massive computer models, in particular, models that attempt to model decadal-scale dynamics. In summary, IPCC-style committee-consensu s climate-change science. ▷ Best Available Climate Science Derives from thermodynamic considerations associated to conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and increase of entropy, as instantiated by radiation transport theory, as calculated by slide-rule, and as affirmed by paleo-evidence and by sustained observation of global energy imbalance. In summary, the multi-decadal arc of Hansen-style climate change science. http://pubs.giss.n asa.gov/abs/ha0460 0x.html http://arxiv.org/a bs/1105.1140 http://arxiv.org/a bs/1110.1365 http://arxiv.org/a bs/1211.4846 Conclusion: Because the Fyfe/Gillett/Zwier s article narrowly confines its critique to mediocre varieties of climate-change science, their conclusions perforce are utterly silent in regard to the crucial question “When will global measures of energy imbalance stop accelerating?“ http://www.skeptic alscience.com/imag es/Sea-Level-1.gif http://onlinelibra ry.wiley.com/doi/1 0.1002/grl.50382/p df That's the main problem. There is a large energy imbalance that is accelerating. Right now the energy is being absorbed by the ocean. Conservation of energy means that the energy will be transferred into the atmosphere at some point in time. There is no denying that air temperatures since the 1880s have seen periods of increase and periods of decrease, but the overall trend is up. It is the overall trend that really matters the most.  (Aug 28, 2013 | post #38583)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

Now I get it.Even though the temperature increase is within the margin of error presented in the model the model is still wrong. It took me a while to wrap my head around that piece of "logic".  (Aug 28, 2013 | post #38564)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

I do not understand where you are getting the 0.06 C per decade. Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Global_ warming  (Aug 27, 2013 | post #38542)

Global Warming

Al Gore: Republicans tell me privately they believe in gl...

Excellent source. Very thorough and understandable.  (Aug 27, 2013 | post #21)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

Kristy, I am not one to engage in mudslinging. I must admit that I am not clear as to what you are saying. Can you please expand on your statement so I have a clearer idea of what you are saying.  (Aug 27, 2013 | post #38537)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

This review of climate prediction models seems pretty straightforward to me. No model is perfect, but they do seem to be pretty close. http://thinkprogre ss.org/climate/201 3/01/03/1378431/co ntrary-to-contrari an-claims-ipcc-tem perature-projectio ns-have-been-excep tionally-accurate/ Here is another site that carries some weight as far as I am concerned: http://www.politif act.com/truth-o-me ter/statements/201 3/feb/15/barack-ob ama/barack-obama-s ays-12-hottest-yea rs-record-have-com / Politifact is non-partisan and it does not have an agenda other than to fact check. Of course the models will be revised as the ARGO data becomes available over a longer term, but that is the nature of models - constant revision.  (Aug 26, 2013 | post #38503)

Global Warming

Al Gore: Republicans tell me privately they believe in gl...

You are very hard core! I am speaking in terms of the Milankovich cycles. The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age. Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years.[18] A regime of eccentricity lower than the current value will last for about the next 100,000 years. Changes in northern hemisphere summer insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity ε. No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years. The irridation ranges from 440 w/m-2 to 540 w/m-2, which is a lot more than one in a thousand. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Milanko vitch_cycles  (Aug 23, 2013 | post #12)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

Do you bother to fact check anything? Yup, turns out that even people who claim that global warming isn't happening think that John L. Casey, the director and sole named employee of the SSRC, is a "scam artist trying to get his hands in your pocket" who lacks "any credibility in climate research." Indeed, the SSRC's website acknowledges that Casey lacks both education and experience with climate science. I have to stress how incredibly easy it was to determine that the Space and Science Research Center shouldn't be taken seriously. Basically, all I had to do was Google the group's name. Apparently, that was too much for poor Jim Hoft. None of those "experts " or "members of the SSRC staff" are named anywhere on the website; Casey is the only one affiliated with the group specifically mentioned. Why aren't the other "experts " and "staff" named? Either Casey is worried about dazzling us with the big names he has behind him, or they are too modest to want to be linked to such an impressive organization as the SSRC. Or, you know, they don't exist. In the third link that comes up when you Google the SSRC's name ("More on the 'Space and Science Research Center' hoax"), climate skeptic Tom Nelson suggests that Casey is a "hoaxer, fraud, or scam artist." He also links to skeptic site JunkScience.com's take on Casey: We think he's a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets but couldn't see how he expected to do so -- now he's told us. He's looking for 'meaningful funding' and he thinks the skeptic community might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork over some cash. We'd like to think skeptics are not a good target for scammers hunting the gullible but with Al raking in cash with his fear campaign it was inevitable some crook would try to siphon some off with another 'angle'. If you must give your hard-earned away bear in mind that JunkScience.com is always chronically short of funds. In a separate post on Casey ("Looks like a hoax to me"), Nelson notes climate skeptic Leif Svalgaard's comments on Caey: The 'Space and Science Research Center' and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of 'experts'. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release.  (Aug 23, 2013 | post #38395)

Global Warming

Al Gore: Republicans tell me privately they believe in gl...

No one is denying that solar irradiance goes through long term large scale changes that have a huge impact on the climate. The problem is that global temperatures are going up while solar irradiance is declining slightly. If it isn't CO2, then what is driving the temperature rise?  (Aug 22, 2013 | post #5)

Global Warming

New IPCC report leaked: We're heading toward 9F increase ...

Are you saying that the earth's surface and the oceans are not a part of the globe? In most scientific endeavors the complexity of the endeavor increases as a function of time. For example, a V-2 was very crude in comparison to the Saturn V, which is crude in comparison to the Space Shuttle. Climate modeling has to be the most difficult scientific endeavors in the history of mankind. No one has ever said that they had a complete understanding of climate. Validation is major part of every computer model. The model is created using assumptions, and only real world testing will demonstrate which assumptions are correct and which assumptions are incorrect. Take the example of the hypersonic engine. In theory it is the simplest engine of all - it has no moving parts. In reality it is so complicated that it took sixty years of failures to get a hypersonic engine that ran for a few seconds. The same hold true for climate models. There are always going to be surprises. Big surprises. All the modelers can do is revise the assumptions until the model matches the real world. The failure of a climate model is not some kind of conspiracy. It is just an indication of how difficult it is to model climate. In hindsight I wish that I had been able to work on climate modeling rather than hypersonic engines, but that is the way that it goes.  (Aug 20, 2013 | post #17)