Jerry Mahlman: Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:44 AM GMT on December 09, 2012

Share this Blog
18
+

Jerry Mahlman: Plants and Birds and Rocks and Things

I found out this week at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union that my friend Jerry Mahlman died in late November. Jerry was a climate scientist, and for many years, the Director of the Geophysical Fluids Dynamics Laboratory. Here is the announcement of his death, which includes a paragraph about his science life. Here is Rick Piltz's, Remembering Jerry Mahlman.

In 2003 Jerry and I hatched a plan to road trip to Big Bend National Park. Jerry liked to “bushwhack” across desolate places, and in the Lower 48, Big Bend National Park is about as remote and desolate as it gets. Big Bend is also home to a huge variety of wildlife. The wildlife is there not only because it is protected desolation, but also because its climate straddles the edge of the tropics. This means birds, and birds could be the noble goal of any Jerry adventure.

The retired Jerry set out to planning. Another flavor of road trip brought me to his house in Longmont, Colorado, and Jerry had collected a set of suitably obscure information about the places in the Larry McMurtry world through which we would venture. There would be counties where there might be 4 rooms for those passing through – identify such opportunity in advance. Jerry had descriptions that required us to pay attention to the juniper trees on the side of road at the curve 31 miles from the U.S. highway intersection. Beyond the juniper, there would be pull out and a path, and down that path, a gully, and in that gully, the footprint of a dinosaur.

The week before we were on our way, Jerry had his stroke. The rational, though perhaps without fully thinking it through – the rational Jerry called me to explain that despite the type and severity of a stroke that normally killed more than 99% of the time, he was certain that by the time I arrived in three days, he would be ready to go. He had tested his readiness, by standing and walking. Though he was dizzied and tired by more than a few steps, he was certain that by the time we arrived in Big Bend his recovery would be adequate. As a precaution we would limit our exposure to steep trails and sheer cliffs.

That trip never happened. After recovery and therapy Jerry and I did take a set of road trips into the easy hinterlands of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. We would frequently pass through Fort Collins, and he would talk about his time with Janet during graduate school. On one of the trips beyond Colorado’s Moose Viewing Capital, Walden, we happened upon a “nature” trail on, probably, Bureau of Land Management leased land. The nature trail was maintained by an oil interest, and had signs that talked about the natural warming caused by carbon dioxide, and how the oil industry removed carbon dioxide from the air, pumping it into to the ground to release, safely, more oil to be pumped. Recycling carbon dioxide.

In his backyard Jerry kept something of a rock garden, perhaps more in the style of corralled rocks than, say, the Japanese Tea Garden in San Francisco. In 2008 with Jerry’s short-term memory loss starting to become prominent, we set out to Capulin Volcano National Monument in New Mexico. The noble goal was large round rocks spewed from a volcano. We hiked in the National Monument, and collected large round rocks from a rancher’s field, and then set off through the dirt roads of northern New Mexico and southeastern Colorado. We drove the entire length of the Dry Cimarron River, wandering onto roadside rock crumbles and into easy gullies. We crossed the grasslands, through the windmills and settlements that are relics from the Dust Bowl. We visited dimly lit, small-town museums that were housed in repurposed general stores and gas stations. We tried to use, whenever possible, Colorado Highway 71, which ran north into Nebraska to his hometown of Crawford, and beyond to Janet’s hometown of Hot Springs, South Dakota.



Jerry Mahlman in a gully of the Dry Cimarron River, New Mexico, 2008

Our last trip was in 2009 - too early for a last trip, but lives get complicated. It was October. We started up over mountains in Wyoming, but the roads were closed to our demure vehicle. So we hiked Vedauwoo Rocks, and then we went down a barren Wyoming road that had remained solidly anchored in Jerry’s memory. We ate at a Chinese restaurant, in a town that met the required criterion of at least two Chinese restaurants – to assure some quality from competition. The hot and sour soup passed muster. The Scoville Scale was unchallenged.

From that common place where it was understood that is was OK to be Ricky, not Richard – to Jerry.

ricky



Jerry Mahlman at Vedawoo, Wyoming, 2009

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 89 - 39

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Quoting pcola57:


Well put Nea..
some people cannot see the forest 'cause of the trees..
I'm alarmed by the lack of intelligent discussions instead all we get are arguments..
Someone has to step up and take this to another level..one that appeals to all of society..JMO..


I don't think I still want to appeal to all of society. Denialists reguardless of motivation, the Westboro Baptist Church and functional idiots are interesting in their own way but I'm more interested in thinking people. There are many who will not rebuild after Sandy because their work would just be washed away in the next event. There must be about 1/2 the cattle in the drought zone. The Mississippi will be down for a long time. I don't think farming or fishing will ever be the same after the last ten years. CO2 has nearly doubled in my life time. The two thousand year old cedars of my youth are seeing their final drouth. We just had sea wall washouts today in my town. I only want to appeal to those that are willing to see and change how we do business.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For some reason yoboi believes idiots require back-up idiots.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From Forecast The Facts:

Whitehouse To GOP: Stop Pushing Our Children Off The Climate Cliff

On December 5, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) ripped Republicans for pushing their children and grandchildren off the climate cliff, while crying "crocodile tears" about their children and grandchildren's fate when it comes to health care, the stimulus, and the fiscal cliff. Watch this excerpt from his blistering rebuke on the Senate floor, and then sign our petition to tell Congress to stop ignoring the climate cliff and to take action now.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Neapolitan:
Really?! OMG!! Did you also know that the earth is flat?!

Your turn!





Classical GreeceThough the earliest evidence of a spherical Earth comes from ancient Greek sources, there is no account of how the sphericity of the Earth was discovered.[10] A plausible explanation is that it was "the experience of travellers that suggested such an explanation for the variation in the observable altitude and the change in the area of circumpolar stars, a change that was quite drastic between Greek settlements" around the eastern Mediterranean Sea, particularly those between the Nile Delta and the Crimea.[11]

According to Diogenes Laertius, "[ Pythagoras ] was the first [Greek] who called the earth round; though Theophrastus attributes this to Parmenides, and Zeno to Hesiod."

Pythagoras
Early Greek philosophers alluded to a spherical Earth, though with some ambiguity.[12] Pythagoras (6th century BC) was among those said to have originated the idea, but this may reflect the ancient Greek practice of ascribing every discovery to one or another of their ancient wise men.[10] Some idea of the sphericity of the Earth seems to have been known to both Parmenides and Empedocles in the 5th century BC,[13] and although the idea cannot reliably be ascribed to Pythagoras,[14] it may, nevertheless have been formulated in the Pythagorean school in the 5th century BC.[10][13] After the 5th century BC, no Greek writer of repute thought the world was anything but round.[12]





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Really?! OMG!! Did you also know that the earth is flat?!

Your turn!



sorry to tell ya the earth is not flat....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:So, did you know the earth has not warmed for 16 years?
Really?! OMG!! Did you also know that the earth is flat?!

Your turn!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
http://youtu.be/DrGuVa-4BVE
Quoting pcola57:


Well put Nea..
some people cannot see the forest 'cause of the trees..
I'm alarmed by the lack of intelligent discussions instead all we get are arguments..
Someone has to step up and take this to another level..one that appeals to all of society..JMO..


Really?

So, did you know the earth has not warmed for 16 years?

I did not think so.

Do your homework before you look foolish from the influence of some you think legitimate.

You will find many discrepancies within their message in the end.

Just Sayin..........

It is a learning curve in the end...........



Respect to Jerry Mahlman on behalf of Dr. Rood.

Peace>

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting misanthrope:

You'd have to ask Dr. Mann to find out exactly what he meant but, given the context, I'd say it means a surge in sea level seen at the coast. In this particular case, the surge would be a combination of the incoming tide and the storm surge. My assumption is that Dr. Mann specifically avoided the use of the term 'storm surge' since his point was related to exacerbation of storm damage through the effects of climate change.

Again, you'd have to check with Dr. Mann to be sure of his meaning but I'd say that Sandy was a hurricane that made landfall on the mid-Atlantic US coast.



You know I have to agree with you he does say Coastal surge. Which is a great selection of words. Not sure what Coastal surge is but you think he would have also mentioned the tide in his figures. Why would he leave out that part conveniently. Lets see how much the tide had to do with this record. Which looks to be over 33% of the total height of the water

"The Battery, NY: Next predicted high tides are 4.7 ft (1.44 m) at 10/29/2012 20:53 EDT and 5.3 ft (1.64 m) at 10/30/2012 09:07 EDT."

I agree with you on the first one but the second Sandy was not a Hurricane at landfall. A gale has not been used for tropical cyclones since 1986. Source NHC

Tropical Storm
A tropical cyclone in which the maximum 1-minute sustained surface wind ranges from 34 to 63 knots (39 to 73 mph) inclusive. Source NWS

Gale
An extratropical low or an area of sustained surface winds of 34 (39 mph) to 47 knots (54 mph) Source NWS
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:

What is a coastal surge? please explain it to us all.

You'd have to ask Dr. Mann to find out exactly what he meant but, given the context, I'd say it means a surge in sea level seen at the coast. In this particular case, the surge would be a combination of the incoming tide and the storm surge. My assumption is that Dr. Mann specifically avoided the use of the term 'storm surge' since his point was related to exacerbation of storm damage through the effects of climate change.

Quoting nymore:

Storm of its sort what sort of storm was it? Was it a magic storm
Again, you'd have to check with Dr. Mann to be sure of his meaning but I'd say that Sandy was a hurricane that made landfall on the mid-Atlantic US coast.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting misanthrope:


You obviously have an agenda here so there's not much point in continuing this further. I will tell you again, however, that I see no conflict between what Dr. Masters wrote and what Dr. Mann said. Specifically, Dr. Mann said that there was a "record coastal surge of more than 13' at New York City." Notice that he didn't say storm surge - you're the only one harping on that. The quote that you provided from Dr. Masters confirms that the water level at the Battery was higher during Sandy than during the 1821 hurricane. I see no conflict there.

Second, during the interview Dr. Mann stated that Sandy was "the largest storm of its sort on record." If the numbers in Wikipedia are correct, Sandy indeed had the largest gale diameter of any Atlantic hurricane on record and, therefor, Dr. Mann's assertion is accurate. Dr. Mann said nothing about the area of tropical storm-force winds so there's no conflict with what Dr. Masters wrote.

QED



What is a coastal surge? please explain it to us all.

Storm of its sort what sort of storm was it? Was it a magic storm

Admit it you are looking for a way out and not being very successful.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
Most notable events of the Hurricane Season of 2012
Hurricane Sandy was truly astounding in its size and power. At its peak size, twenty hours before landfall, Sandy had tropical storm-force winds that covered an area nearly one-fifth the area of the contiguous United States. Since detailed records of hurricane size began in 1988, only one tropical storm (Olga of 2001) has had a larger area of tropical storm-force winds (source Jeff Masters Nov 30)

Next

In terms of storm surge, Sandy was not a black swan, since the 1821 hurricane that hit New York City had a higher storm surge. Historical records recount that the water rose thirteen feet in one hour at The Battery on Manhattan during the 1821 hurricane. The water level did not rise as high as during Sandy, though, since the 1821 hurricane hit at low tide. (source Jeff Masters Dec 10)

So the tide not surge made the difference

Here is the quotes you were to lazy to find, so I ask again who will you throw under the bus Mann or Masters


You obviously have an agenda here so there's not much point in continuing this further. I will tell you again, however, that I see no conflict between what Dr. Masters wrote and what Dr. Mann said. Specifically, Dr. Mann said that there was a "record coastal surge of more than 13' at New York City." Notice that he didn't say storm surge - you're the only one harping on that. The quote that you provided from Dr. Masters confirms that the water level at the Battery was higher during Sandy than during the 1821 hurricane. I see no conflict there.

Second, during the interview Dr. Mann stated that Sandy was "the largest storm of its sort on record." If the numbers in Wikipedia are correct, Sandy indeed had the largest gale diameter of any Atlantic hurricane on record and, therefor, Dr. Mann's assertion is accurate. Dr. Mann said nothing about the area of tropical storm-force winds so there's no conflict with what Dr. Masters wrote.

QED

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Most notable events of the Hurricane Season of 2012
Hurricane Sandy was truly astounding in its size and power. At its peak size, twenty hours before landfall, Sandy had tropical storm-force winds that covered an area nearly one-fifth the area of the contiguous United States. Since detailed records of hurricane size began in 1988, only one tropical storm (Olga of 2001) has had a larger area of tropical storm-force winds (source Jeff Masters)

Next

In terms of storm surge, Sandy was not a black swan, since the 1821 hurricane that hit New York City had a higher storm surge. Historical records recount that the water rose thirteen feet in one hour at The Battery on Manhattan during the 1821 hurricane. The water level did not rise as high as during Sandy, though, since the 1821 hurricane hit at low tide. (source Jeff Masters)

So the tide not surge made the difference

Here are the quotes you were to lazy to find, so I ask again who will you throw under the bus Mann or Masters
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:


So what caused the water to rise if it was not storm surge?
Sandy hit at basically high tide and the hurricane of 1812 hit at low tide so if you take out the tide which you have to in order to make an accurate measurement, Sandy does not win.

Again, the water level at the Battery in NYC during Sandy rose to 13.88', a record high. New York City wasn't the only place to see record high water. I haven't seen you even try to dispute this.

Quoting nymore:

If we want to go for largest area covered by Tropical storm force winds in the Atlantic that would be Olga in 2001.

First, you're going by largest area - with no souce provided, by the way. That's not the only measure of the size of a hurricane. If we look at gale diameter, Wikipedia - granted not always accurate but I think close enough here - puts Olga in third place with a gale diameter of 865 miles. Second place goes to Igor at 920 miles and in first place we have Sandy at 945 miles. That would make Sandy a record large hurricane.

Quoting nymore:


I am guessing by rant you mean actual facts you would rather not hear.

Again, there's a big difference between actual facts and you just saying stuff. As far as I'm concerned, it's not an 'actual fact' until you back it up. You are on the right track, however, with the 'rather not hear' part.


Quoting nymore:

Lets make this easy for some of you ppl. I have put up statements by Masters saying Mann is wrong. They both can't be right so who do you pick Mann or Masters.

First, you've told us what you think Dr. Masters wrote, not provided a link or a quote. So, we're going to have to take that with a grain of salt. Second, there's not even a conflict between what you think Dr. Masters wrote and what Dr. Mann said in the interview. Basically, I can't figure out what you're going on about.

Finally, I'm not going to bother addressing the ad hominems - it's just more of you saying stuff.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting misanthrope:


Dr. Mann didn't say storm surge. Remember, he was speaking for a general audience and the point he was making was that the water level in New York Harbor rose to a record level during Sandy, in part because of the sea level rise we've seen over the past century. As for Tip - wasn't that a Pacific Basin storm?

Finally, you talk about bias. Don't you think that your feelings toward Dr. Mann are, in large part, the motivation behind this rant of yours?





So what caused the water to rise if it was not storm surge?
Sandy hit at basically high tide and the hurricane of 1812 hit at low tide so if you take out the tide which you have to in order to make an accurate measurement, Sandy does not win.

If we want to go for largest area covered by Tropical storm force winds in the Atlantic that would be Olga in 2001.

I am guessing by rant you mean actual facts you would rather not hear.

Lets make this easy for some of you ppl. I have put up statements by Masters saying Mann is wrong. They both can't be right so who do you pick Mann or Masters. Tough call to make, one of your heroes has to be wrong so who will you throw under the bus

Maybe you should be more like Neapolitan and when caught making up facts, just don't answer back with facts only name calling and move along as if you were never caught lying. Above all else never admit you were wrong. I see you are already starting to embrace these ideas.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting Neapolitan:
Sure they are. The same reason Watts and his gullible minions try so hard over and over again (and fail over and over again) to smear Mann's good name. The same reason Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli squandered hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in a futile attempt to discredit Dr. Mann. The same reason Mann's name was tossed about in the silly, wholly-fabricated 'climategate' 'scandal'.

In short, scientific fact is overwhelmingly and insurmountably against the denialists. Thus cornered by their own intentional ignorance, their only recourse, then, is to lash out at the people behind that science. What they're unwilling--or, more likely, unable--to understand is that even were Mann and Hansen and Oreskes and Trenberth and Masters and every one of the other many thousands of people behind those facts found guilty of fraud and perjury and sorcery of all types; it wouldn't make a lick of difference to The Three Constant Truths of Climate Science:

1) The earth's surface is warming rapidly.

2) That warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO2.

3) Those increasing concentrations are because of our unimpeded burning of fossil fuels, and the growing number of positive feedback effects adding to the overall effect.

All else is just blithering, blathering, bleating...


Well put Nea..
some people cannot see the forest 'cause of the trees..
I'm alarmed by the lack of intelligent discussions instead all we get are arguments..
Someone has to step up and take this to another level..one that appeals to all of society..JMO..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting misanthrope:
Finally, you talk about bias. Don't you think that your feelings toward Dr. Mann are, in large part, the motivation behind this rant of yours?
Sure they are. The same reason Watts and his gullible minions try so hard over and over again (and fail over and over again) to smear Mann's good name. The same reason Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli squandered hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in a futile attempt to discredit Dr. Mann. The same reason Mann's name was tossed about in the silly, wholly-fabricated 'climategate' 'scandal'.

In short, scientific fact is overwhelmingly and insurmountably against the denialists. Thus cornered by their own intentional ignorance, their only recourse, then, is to lash out at the people behind that science. What they're unwilling--or, more likely, unable--to understand is that even were Mann and Hansen and Oreskes and Trenberth and Masters and every one of the other many thousands of people behind those facts found guilty of fraud and perjury and sorcery of all types; it wouldn't make a lick of difference to The Three Constant Truths of Climate Science:

1) The earth's surface is warming rapidly.

2) That warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO2.

3) Those increasing concentrations are because of our unimpeded burning of fossil fuels, and the growing number of positive feedback effects adding to the overall effect.

All else is just blithering, blathering, bleating...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting nymore:
Sandy low pressure Hurricane is correct (maybe I will have to check since it did not make landfall in NJ as a hurricane) . But if he want to claim Hurricane (tropical cyclone) being the largest now that is a lie it is Tip (1979). You see if he wants one to be true the other can not be. Also he does not say hurricane he just says lowest pressure north of Hatteras. Also Sandy never hit the coast as a hurricane north of Hatteras

As far as storm surge DR. Master just posted an article showing that wold be the hurricane of 1812.


Dr. Mann didn't say storm surge. Remember, he was speaking for a general audience and the point he was making was that the water level in New York Harbor rose to a record level during Sandy, in part because of the sea level rise we've seen over the past century. As for Tip - wasn't that a Pacific Basin storm?

Finally, you talk about bias. Don't you think that your feelings toward Dr. Mann are, in large part, the motivation behind this rant of yours?

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting nymore:


Did you watch the video? Rookie seems to have spotted the mistakes. Maybe if you take your blinders off you can see them to. Put it this way you have to make a decision, Is Dr. Masters right or Mann? Next one Is history right or Mann. Next one is Chris Burt from Wu right or Mann. I just showed you lower pressure north of Hatteras, So I guess those are not facts. Well maybe you can show me evidence Backing Mann's Claims or continue to be ignorant because of your bias.

All Mann says is north of Hatteras NOT LOWER 48.


Actually, nymore, I have not watched the video. I took you at your word for it.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting misanthrope:

But Sandy had the lowest barometric pressure of any hurricane at landfall - north of Cape Hatteras, correct?

Also, Dr. Mann stated that there was a record coastal surge with more than 13' in New York City. The 13' water level at the Battery was a record, correct.

Sandy low pressure Hurricane is correct (maybe I will have to check since it did not make landfall in NJ as a hurricane) . But if he want to claim Hurricane (tropical cyclone) being the largest now that is a lie it is Tip (1979). You see if he wants one to be true the other can not be. Also he does not say hurricane he just says lowest pressure north of Hatteras. Also Sandy never hit the coast as a hurricane north of Hatteras

As far as storm surge DR. Master just posted an article showing that would be the hurricane of 1812.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:


Did you watch the video? Rookie seems to have spotted the mistakes. Maybe if you take your blinders off you can see them to. Put it this way you have to make a decision, Is Dr. Masters right or Mann? Next one Is history right or Mann. Next one is Chris Burt from Wu right or Mann. I just showed you lower pressure north of Hatteras, So I guess those are not facts. Well maybe you can show me evidence Backing Mann's Claims or continue to be ignorant because of your bias.

All Mann says is north of Hatteras NOT LOWER 48.

But Sandy had the lowest barometric pressure of any hurricane at landfall - north of Cape Hatteras, correct?

Also, Dr. Mann stated that there was a record coastal surge with more than 13 ' in New York City. The 13' water level at the Battery was a record, correct.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting nymore:



Did you watch the video? Rookie seems to have spotted the mistakes. Maybe if you take your blinders off you can see them to. Put it this way you have to make a decision, Is Dr. Masters right or Mann? Next one Is tropical cyclone history right or Mann. Next one is Chris Burt from Wu right or Mann. I just showed you lower pressure north of Hatteras, So I guess those are not facts. Well maybe you can show me evidence Backing Mann's Claims or continue to be ignorant because of your bias.

I also guess the graph I posted show Nea's falsehood is also a lie.

All Mann says is north of Hatteras NOT LOWER 48.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting misanthrope:

I checked post 52 and see no evidence, just you saying stuff. You have an unfortunate habit of confusing your opinions with actual fact. Probably why you feel the need resort to ad hominems so often.



Did you watch the video? Rookie seems to have spotted the mistakes. Maybe if you take your blinders off you can see them to. Put it this way you have to make a decision, Is Dr. Masters right or Mann? Next one Is history right or Mann. Next one is Chris Burt from Wu right or Mann. I just showed you lower pressure north of Hatteras, So I guess those are not facts. Well maybe you can show me evidence Backing Mann's Claims or continue to be ignorant because of your bias.

All Mann says is north of Hatteras NOT LOWER 48.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
Maybe you could read post 52.

As far as pressure a quick check shows for North America on the Atlantic side that would be 940.2 Millibars at St. Anthony Newfoundland. For the North Atlantic it would be 923.6 MB at Storhofoi Iceland

I checked post 52 and see no evidence, just you saying stuff. You have an unfortunate habit of confusing your opinions with actual fact. Probably why you feel the need resort to ad hominems so often.

Added - According to Christopher Burt, the previous lowest barometric pressure recorded in the lower 48 is 952 mb in Bridgehampton, New York on 3/3/1914 .
Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting nymore:
I am all for Ways to cut pollution if it is feasible.

The only reason I point out some things on here is just to tell the truth on both sides. There are plenty of ppl on here that will point out any flaw they see when someone on the other side says something, so I just point out the same thing on the other side.

If I claim something and it is wrong feel free to correct me. After all that is how you learn. But just because I point out crap when I see it does not make me a denier or the devil siding with Exxon.

Just because some may not accept it because of their own bias, does not make the statement untrue.


I do not think of you as another puppet for the denial industry. What I question is why you make the posts that could easily be associated with the puppets.

Many times the puppets will make announcements they think is a game changer and it is not even close to being anything of the such. Should this be left to stand as a correct statement then people will believe that it is correct simply because it is left unchallenged. You do not present anything that you would claim as a game changer, but your misdirections can have the same effects as those that do claim they have a game changer. You do not promote science when you nitpick insignificant talking points. I truly, truly wish that someone, even someone within the denial industry, would reveal the science that shows we can continue pumping tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere and it will not have negative impacts for our doing so. After decades of the denial industry making false claims of finding a game changer it has always been anything except a game changer. Why? The denial industry puts forth no efforts to show any possible flaws with the AGWT. Simply because it is not flawed according to The Laws of Physics, The Laws of Thermodynamics and The Laws of Chemistry. So, what does the denial industry do? The denial industry tries to discredit the scientist and any message that the AGWT tells us. When you make your posts, no matter the reason you make them, you mimic the actions of the denial industry. ... Regardless of what you may believe, this is not a game. Nor is it a mere battle of wits. This is real science showing us real consequences. When you start behaving as though you understand this, then you will be more successful in dismissing any claims that you are merely a puppet of the denial industry. Why not be fair in your posts and point out the continuous flaws made by the denial industry. Yes, point out the flaws of the scientist as well, but do not limit your efforts to doing just this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Perhaps I have confused you with someone else, again. Perhaps you think that our efforts towards serious mitigation attempts could prove successful. .... Then why do you resist so much? Why do you look for little details to point out that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever?

We had an excellent conversation the other day on methods that could be put in place that could make a difference. I realized, through our exchanges, that we were not talking about science fiction. All that we suggested could be done and in fairly short order. The costs would not be significantly higher, I would imagine, than it is to just maintain what is already being used and stamping out newer versions of such. .... So, why did you so quickly abandon this conversation instead of trying to develop more ideas that are also feasible? I was somewhat disappointed that you so quickly abandoned this line of thought.
I am all for Ways to cut pollution if it is feasible.

The only reason I point out some things on here is just to tell the truth on both sides. There are plenty of ppl on here that will point out any flaw they see when someone on the other side says something, so I just point out the same thing on the other side.

If I claim something and it is wrong feel free to correct me. After all that is how you learn. But just because I point out crap when I see it does not make me a denier or the devil siding with Exxon.

Just because some may not accept it because of their own bias, does not make the statement untrue.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting misanthrope:

Just wondering, what's the lowest pressure recorded on land north of Cape Hatteras? Also wondering where's the evidence that Dr. Mann lied about anything? You're making some very serious charges without providing any evidence to back them up.

Maybe you could read post 52.

As far as pressure a quick check shows for North America on the Atlantic side that would be 940.2 Millibars at St. Anthony Newfoundland. For the North Atlantic it would be 923.6 MB at Storhofoi Iceland
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
We are altering the atmosphere on a Global scale. And that alteration, the increasing of Global Temps is changing the Storms in a way we are just now becoming aware of.

All the Global climatic models have UNDERPLAYED the warming. And the trend is that the atmosphere is changing at a much faster rate and that is altering the Dynamical paramaters that drive the Global Heat pump. Typhoons and Hurricanes take the heat from the tropical and temperate zones to the the Poles in a continuing regulatory way. The Balance is becoming more and more compromised by mans activities.

So we will continue to see these effects globally. And at a faster rate.

Hang on, the 21st Century will be a pivotal one of Global Climatic change.

The humongous size and bizarrely perfect hybrid hurricane-within-a-noreaster structure were among the aspects of Sandy which were extraordinary. For now it's not clear exactly what the physical connection would be between a warmer atmosphere and larger and/or hybrid storms, though there could be one and further study is merited.

Reflections on a surreal superstorm and the 2012 hurricane season
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Mann calls geo engineering schemes????????So is that good or bad Dr. Mann????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Perhaps I have confused you with someone else, again. Perhaps you think that our efforts towards serious mitigation attempts could prove successful. .... Then why do you resist so much? Why do you look for little details to point out that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever?

We had an excellent conversation the other day on methods that could be put in place that could make a difference. I realized, through our exchanges, that we were not talking about science fiction. All that we suggested could be done and in fairly short order. The costs would not be significantly higher, I would imagine, than it is to just maintain what is already being used and stamping out newer versions of such. .... So, why did you so quickly abandon this conversation instead of trying to develop more ideas that are also feasible? I was somewhat disappointed that you so quickly abandoned this line of thought.
Trolls like to play you.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree, nymore. Mann should have better defined what it was that he was saying.

Mann was incorrect in his statement that Sandy produced the largest storm surge in NY. He was wrong about this by an incident but not by very much in terms of the size of the surge. This is not a game changer.

Tip was the largest TC, of recorded history of such storms. However, Tip was also a Pacific basin storm. Mann should have made this disclaimer that he is speaking of Atlantic basin storms. Had Mann made this distinction, then he would be correct. This comment, by Mann, does not alter anything concerning AGW and its likely impacts on us all.

On the lowest barometric pressure recorded north of Cape Hatteras, I would need to see when they attribute Hurricane Sandy becoming extratropical, where it was at the time and what its barometric pressure was at that time to say if Mann is correct or wrong about this. Someone may have all of this information handy, but I will try to determine this through some research.

None of the mistakes by Mann are game changers. Christopher Burt has made mistakes as well that he does correct when they are brought to his attention. Will Mann correct his mistakes as they are made known to him? I do not know that he has not but, if he has not, then it serves him better to admit to them know. When all is considered, none of this any game changer when it comes to the science concerning the AGWT. None of this even calls into question the science behind the AGWT.

You have often stated that you believe that AGW is real and that mankind's activities contribute to the warming. You have questioned as to how much of the current warming is caused by humans. That is fair enough. I also wonder this to a lesser degree than you seem to. When you look at all of the activities of mankind that would contribute towards AGW then I see little possibility that our activities are not a significant contributor to the current warming. CO2 may be the primary concern of AGW, but it is far from the only concern of AGW.

You have even said that you do not believe any efforts on our part would not make any difference. This, I believe, is why you ask questions and make comments that one would better associate with that of a puppet with the denial industry. Our attempts towards any mitigation may not prove effective, but the longer you hold to your defeatist attitude and abstain from making any attempt of any serious efforts towards mitigation, then the closer you come to fulfilling your own prophecy.


I am pretty sure Mann said that area of the Atlantic.Play the video...He said North of Cape Hatteras.

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
The record for Extra tropical is 912 to 915 millibars, Sandy 943 millibars.

I have never said you can not make a difference Hell I even pointed some ways to do it. you got me confused with someone else again.

I agree they are not game changers but why lie in the first place.


Perhaps I have confused you with someone else, again. Perhaps you think that our efforts towards serious mitigation attempts could prove successful. .... Then why do you resist so much? Why do you look for little details to point out that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever?

We had an excellent conversation the other day on methods that could be put in place that could make a difference. I realized, through our exchanges, that we were not talking about science fiction. All that we suggested could be done and in fairly short order. The costs would not be significantly higher, I would imagine, than it is to just maintain what is already being used and stamping out newer versions of such. .... So, why did you so quickly abandon this conversation instead of trying to develop more ideas that are also feasible? I was somewhat disappointed that you so quickly abandoned this line of thought.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting nymore:
The record for Extra tropical is 912 to 915 millibars, Sandy 943 millibars.

I have never said you can not make a difference Hell I even pointed some ways to do it. you got me confused with someone else again.

I agree they are not game changers but why lie in the first place.

Just wondering, what's the lowest pressure recorded on land north of Cape Hatteras? Also wondering where's the evidence that Dr. Mann lied about anything? You're making some very serious charges without providing any evidence to back them up.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree, nymore. Mann should have better defined what it was that he was saying.

Mann was incorrect in his statement that Sandy produced the largest storm surge in NY. He was wrong about this by an incident but not by very much in terms of the size of the surge. This is not a game changer.

Tip was the largest TC, of recorded history of such storms. However, Tip was also a Pacific basin storm. Mann should have made this disclaimer that he is speaking of Atlantic basin storms. Had Mann made this distinction, then he would be correct. This comment, by Mann, does not alter anything concerning AGW and its likely impacts on us all.

On the lowest barometric pressure recorded north of Cape Hatteras, I would need to see when they attribute Hurricane Sandy becoming extratropical, where it was at the time and what its barometric pressure was at that time to say if Mann is correct or wrong about this. Someone may have all of this information handy, but I will try to determine this through some research.

None of the mistakes by Mann are game changers. Christopher Burt has made mistakes as well that he does correct when they are brought to his attention. Will Mann correct his mistakes as they are made known to him? I do not know that he has not but, if he has not, then it serves him better to admit to them know. When all is considered, none of this any game changer when it comes to the science concerning the AGWT. None of this even calls into question the science behind the AGWT.

You have often stated that you believe that AGW is real and that mankind's activities contribute to the warming. You have questioned as to how much of the current warming is caused by humans. That is fair enough. I also wonder this to a lesser degree than you seem to. When you look at all of the activities of mankind that would contribute towards AGW then I see little possibility that our activities are not a significant contributor to the current warming. CO2 may be the primary concern of AGW, but it is far from the only concern of AGW.

You have even said that you do not believe any efforts on our part would not make any difference. This, I believe, is why you ask questions and make comments that one would better associate with that of a puppet with the denial industry. Our attempts towards any mitigation may not prove effective, but the longer you hold to your defeatist attitude and abstain from making any attempt of any serious efforts towards mitigation, then the closer you come to fulfilling your own prophecy.
The record for Extra tropical is 912 to 915 millibars, Sandy 943 millibars.

I have never said you can not make a difference Hell I even pointed some ways to do it. you got me confused with someone else again.

I agree they are not game changers but why lie in the first place.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change

"The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are," says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence."
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting nymore:
I just linked the graph, Since I don't have all the info I will reserve judgement on the graph.

As far as Mann. He claims the storm surge in NY was a record, Jeff Masters just posted a blog disputing this (Hurricane 1812). Next Mann claims Sandy was the largest storm of its kind. Well this may be true or not. If he wants to claim Extra tropical he may have a point as I have not checked but if it is a Hurricane (Tropical Cyclone) which is what he says at the beginning that would be Typhoon Tip not Sandy. He also claims Sandy had the lowest pressure north of Cape Hatteras. Now if it is a hurricane he may have a point but if it is an extra tropical storm it is not even close. Please see blog by Chris Burt Weather Historian WU. It seems Mann wants it both ways. Now on to drought he claims they will get much worse as we have seen, but this to is under dispute with the study out last month pointing to very little change if any at all, which has been gaining backing from other Climate scientists.

Well I have made many mistakes but in my chosen field if I was in an interview and make 3 or 4 false statements, I would be lucky if I still had a job.



I agree, nymore. Mann should have better defined what it was that he was saying.

Mann was incorrect in his statement that Sandy produced the largest storm surge in NY. He was wrong about this by an incident but not by very much in terms of the size of the surge. This is not a game changer.

Tip was the largest TC, of recorded history of such storms. However, Tip was also a Pacific basin storm. Mann should have made this disclaimer that he is speaking of Atlantic basin storms. Had Mann made this distinction, then he would be correct. This comment, by Mann, does not alter anything concerning AGW and its likely impacts on us all.

On the lowest barometric pressure recorded north of Cape Hatteras, I would need to see when they attribute Hurricane Sandy becoming extratropical, where it was at the time and what its barometric pressure was at that time to say if Mann is correct or wrong about this. Someone may have all of this information handy, but I will try to determine this through some research.

None of the mistakes by Mann are game changers. Christopher Burt has made mistakes as well that he does correct when they are brought to his attention. Will Mann correct his mistakes as they are made known to him? I do not know that he has not but, if he has not, then it serves him better to admit to them know. When all is considered, none of this any game changer when it comes to the science concerning the AGWT. None of this even calls into question the science behind the AGWT.

You have often stated that you believe that AGW is real and that mankind's activities contribute to the warming. You have questioned as to how much of the current warming is caused by humans. That is fair enough. I also wonder this to a lesser degree than you seem to. When you look at all of the activities of mankind that would contribute towards AGW then I see little possibility that our activities are not a significant contributor to the current warming. CO2 may be the primary concern of AGW, but it is far from the only concern of AGW.

You have even said that you do not believe any efforts on our part would not make any difference. This, I believe, is why you ask questions and make comments that one would better associate with that of a puppet with the denial industry. Our attempts towards any mitigation may not prove effective, but the longer you hold to your defeatist attitude and abstain from making any attempt of any serious efforts towards mitigation, then the closer you come to fulfilling your own prophecy.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Neapolitan:
True. Of course, they'll instantly switch over to "It's only warm because of the El Nino," to be followed almost immediately by, "The world hasn't warmed in a year two years three years four years five years..."Good thing climate isn't your chosen field, then, huh? I mean, I've seen you make three or four false statements in a single paragraph. Heck, a single sentence...
I pointed out your lies just today. Why not point mine out instead of just claiming it. If you had anything that you could show to back up your claims you would and you know it. As of now none have been forthcoming.

La Nina still continuing. ROTFFL ( You win line of the day no doubt about it)

Here is a tip don't make false statements (Blatant lies) that way when someone checks on them you don't look like a Blathering, Blithering, Bleating Buffoon to use your words. It is good Climate Science is not your profession also, hell your terrible at it as a hobby, maybe you should find a new hobby.

Now I know why Mann is your hero you both make claims about weather and climate events with no proof to back them up.

Have a great day if that's possible after the day you had here OLD FRIEND
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting percylives:
IMHO, it will be very interesting when the El-Nino does return with strength. Temperatures will jump above 1 degree C. of warming in that period. The Arctic Ice cover record melt of 2007 that many expected to last for a decade or two was blasted in 2012. After a year of El-Nino, we won't hear about the record warm year of 1998 as it will just be a cool memory.

Deniers, enjoy it while you have it.
True. Of course, they'll instantly switch over to "It's only warm because of the El Nino," to be followed almost immediately by, "The world hasn't warmed in a year two years three years four years five years..."
Quoting nymore:
...in my chosen field if I was in an interview and make 3 or 4 false statements, I would be lucky if I still had a job.
Good thing climate isn't your chosen field, then, huh? I mean, I've seen you make three or four false statements in a single paragraph. Heck, in a single sentence... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13526
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Thank you! Now I know the source. Can you also show me the "flub" that "they" made in defining the gray bars?

As far as Mann is concerned, would not the conversation flow faster if you just pointed out his wrong statements and why they are wrong? Also, not that is actually relevant to the discussion, do you know of anyone that has not made a mistake in their remarks? .... I mean besides you and me. :-) .... and I am becoming suspect of you. :-)
I just linked the graph, Since I don't have all the info I will reserve judgement on the graph.

As far as Mann. He claims the storm surge in NY was a record, Jeff Masters just posted a blog disputing this (Hurricane 1812). Next Mann claims Sandy was the largest storm of its kind. Well this may be true or not. If he wants to claim Extra tropical he may have a point as I have not checked but if it is a Hurricane (Tropical Cyclone) which is what he says at the beginning that would be Typhoon Tip not Sandy. He also claims Sandy had the lowest pressure north of Cape Hatteras. Now if it is a hurricane he may have a point but if it is an extra tropical storm it is not even close. Please see blog by Chris Burt Weather Historian WU. It seems Mann wants it both ways. Now on to drought he claims they will get much worse as we have seen, but this to is under dispute with the study out last month pointing to very little change if any at all, which has been gaining backing from other Climate scientists.

Well I have made many mistakes but in my chosen field if I was in an interview and make 3 or 4 false statements, I would be lucky if I still had a job.

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting nymore:
It is on page 1-39 chapter 1 AR5

Here is a Link

Rookie as far as Mann, watch it and see if you can find them. One of them even Jeff Masters says is wrong.


Thank you! Now I know the source. Can you also show me the "flub" that "they" made in defining the gray bars?

As far as Mann is concerned, would not the conversation flow faster if you just pointed out his wrong statements and why they are wrong? Also, not that is actually relevant to the discussion, do you know of anyone that has not made a mistake in their remarks? .... I mean besides you and me. :-) .... and I am becoming suspect of you. :-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Exactly! Why do you think that I asked for the graph that Little Anthony displays to be sourced. Are you able to source this graph beyond what Little Anthony has sourced it? I am interested in seeing the source of this graph. This something that Little Anthony should have done, but only vaguely did so. Help Little Anthony out. Properly source it for him, please.

As far as finding a link on Little Anthony's blog to download the AR5 draft goes, I did not see it. Would you mind highlighting this for me? - WUWT AR5 draft "bombshell"
It is on page 1-39 chapter 1 AR5

Here is a Link

Rookie as far as Mann, watch it and see if you can find them. One of them even Jeff Masters says is wrong.

I had to watch it again just to make sure and I am now up to 4 falsehoods
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 37


He states that it comes from the AR5 draft. Since it is denoted as Figure 1.4, I would expect that it comes from Chapter 1. If you'd like to verify the authenticity of the graph, you can find the download links for the AR5 draft at WUWT as well as several other Google-searched links.

The three links you refer to as being given by Anthony are said to be given in the caption of the figure itself, according to the post, and are not sources for the graph.


Exactly! Why do you think that I asked for the graph that Little Anthony displays to be sourced. Are you able to source this graph beyond what Little Anthony has sourced it? I am interested in seeing the source of this graph. This something that Little Anthony should have done, but only vaguely did so. Help Little Anthony out. Properly source it for him, please.

As far as finding a link on Little Anthony's blog to download the AR5 draft goes, I did not see it. Would you mind highlighting this for me? - WUWT AR5 draft "bombshell"
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
№ 39
Quoting nymore:


Can you please provide evidence for an on going La Nina

It would seem just the opposite with a neutral warm bias

Lets check shall we



Lets use your own words to describe what you claimed Blathering, blithering, bleating buffoon. The idiot/liar (your words again) debunked again. Have a good weekend Old Friend


Looks like 2012 is a neutral ENSO year overall. Despite this, I know I've seen 2012 as being mentioned as the "warmest La Niña year ever". The graph in your post is a good counter for that claim.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 37
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Where did Little Anthony find that graph? Just where did the graph originate from?

I followed the links under his, "Here is the caption for this figure from the AR5 draft:"

Is the graph here?

Perhaps it is here?

How about here?

Well, that is all of the links that Anthony gave us. I did not see that graph on any of the links. Did you? So, where did the graph come from? When I try to search for it the results are to Anthony's blog or any number of other blogs that link back to Anthony's blog. How odd.

Then little Anthony tells us to ignore the gray bars in the graph "because they flubbed the definition of them". Why does he not tell us what the "flub" was? Did I miss his telling us what the "flub" is? Help me out here. Show me where Anthony describes the "flub", please.

Then he polls his faithful. Guess how that went. Can you guess? Did you take the poll yourself?

What say ye to all of this?


He states that it comes from the AR5 draft. Since it is denoted as Figure 1.4, I would expect that it comes from Chapter 1. If you'd like to verify the authenticity of the graph, you can find the download links for the AR5 draft at WUWT as well as several other Google-searched links.

The three links you refer to as being given by Anthony are said to be given in the caption of the figure itself, according to the post, and are not sources for the graph.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
IMHO, it will be very interesting when the El-Nino does return with strength. Temperatures will jump above 1 degree C. of warming in that period. The Arctic Ice cover record melt of 2007 that many expected to last for a decade or two was blasted in 2012. After a year of El-Nino, we won't hear about the record warm year of 1998 as it will just be a cool memory.

Deniers, enjoy it while you have it.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Quoting nymore:
Oh yea before I forget. Did anyone one see the interview with Michael Mann on another weather site. Watch part 2 and see if you can find the three false statements he makes.

Hint one concerns drought and the two other include Sandy.
Now I know where some on here get their lying ways from their fraud of a hero.



Why not just tell us what false statements Mann had made and then show us your evidence that proves them false.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting nymore:


Can you please provide evidence for an on going La Nina

It would seem just the opposite with a neutral warm bias

Lets check shall we



Lets use your own words to describe what you claimed Blathering, blithering, bleating buffoon. The midget mind debunked again. Have a good weekend Old Friend


I do agree with you that we are not seeing a La Nina at the present. (model runs I have seen on Dr. Master's blog favor the return of a La Nina event) You should also admit that we have not seen an El Nino event since the early months of 2010. The last El Nino lasted for about 6 months at that time. Since the last El Nino we have seen a strong to weak La Nina and for the past few months have seen a weak to flat El Nino in place. While this is not a persistent La Nina, it is also not a return to El Nino either.

I have a question for any that may know. I remember Levi32 stating this past summer that all the indications were showing that El Nino had returned last summer. He even claimed that we would not be seeing these other conditions without an El Nino being in place. Yet an El Nino never formed. Here is my question. Why did all indications show that an El Nino had returned when, in fact, an El Nino event never actually formed?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
What Does A Climate Scientist Think Of Glenn Beck's Environmental-Conspiracy Novel?

PopSci.com

So I was relieved to learn that Beck did not actually write the book. In her recent article “I got duped by Glenn Beck!” (Salon.com, November 19), Sarah Cypher--the editor for an early draft of the book--revealed that Agenda 21 was in fact ghost-written by one Harriet Parke. Beck, it turns out, simply purchased the right to claim he’d written the book. Possessing an even lower opinion now of Mr. Beck, but satisfied there was no longer any conflict of interest, I proceeded to read the book with as open a mind as I could muster.

It resembles a collision between The Matrix, Soylent Green, and Atlas Shrugged.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oh yea before I forget. Did anyone one see the interview with Michael Mann on another weather site. Watch part 2 and see if you can find the three false statements he makes.

Hint one concerns drought and the two other include Sandy.
Now I know where some on here get their lying ways from their fraud of a hero.

Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
Quoting RickyRood:


You perhaps missed the more subtle point that said - If I were to pick 1 quote ... This was perhaps part of the message ....

Now that you have provided 1, taken out of context, posed as a counterexample, with a set of challenges that are in the spirit of boasting ... I remind others

Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric


As for the surface temperature plot, It's not getting warmer again! Really?


Dr. Rood. I know that you are a very busy person, but I greatly appreciate when you are able to offer your knowledge in these discussions. I always look forward to reading any information that you can provide for us.

Thank you!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Perhaps you should read the entire report rather than, as most on this blog write, "cherry-pick." I suppose that warmists are now going to be called "deniers" after this report becomes public. Let the spinning begin. The point of my argument is that the supposed "gods" of global warming science have absolutely no idea what is really occurring. Your idols left you blowing in the wind. The liberal colleges that actually instituted "climate change" curricula might be forced to change the titles of the classes to "climate stagnation in the face of rising emissions". Look at the IPCC's own graph. Where is the warming?

Link


You perhaps missed the more subtle point that said - If I were to pick 1 quote ... This was perhaps part of the message ....

Now that you have provided 1, taken out of context, posed as a counterexample, with a set of challenges that are in the spirit of boasting ... I remind others

Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric


As for the surface temperature plot, It's not getting warmer again! Really?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Another thing Little Anthony fails to explain--and his desperately obsequious minions fail to understand--is that temperatures are indeed rising on a trendline that will place them within the predicted range for all four forecast scenarios: FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4. Yes, the ongoing La Nina is holding surface temps down enough that they'll like be in the lower part of each scenario, but they will fall within predictions. This graph also fails to show that even the seemingly "cool" observed anomalies for 2011 are still higher than they were for any year prior to 2001 (save 1998). IOW, despite what the idiot/liar claims, the planet continues to warm as per IPCC projections.

(So far as his silly "poll": it doesn't properly address the reality, does it? He only has options for "above the model scenario ranges", "below the model scenario ranges", and "in the middle of the model scenario ranges". It's typical of him not to have an option for "within the model scenario ranges", which is, of course, where temps have been, and where they are headed.)

What a blathering, blithering, bleating buffoon...


Can you please provide evidence for an on going La Nina

It would seem just the opposite with a neutral warm bias

Lets check shall we



Lets use your own words to describe what you claimed Blathering, blithering, bleating buffoon. The idiot/liar (your words again) debunked again. Have a good weekend Old Friend
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259

Viewing: 89 - 39

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.