Update: Nevertheless this is the lead story on Morano's site. The author, by virtue of having been a volunteer reviewer of IPCC drafts, is referred to as an "IPCC Scientist".
Morano must be running out of ammo. This is really reaching.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Spot the Error #2
This one's really easy. The article consists of only one claim which is wrong.
Update: Nevertheless this is the lead story on Morano's site. The author, by virtue of having been a volunteer reviewer of IPCC drafts, is referred to as an "IPCC Scientist".
Morano must be running out of ammo. This is really reaching.
Update: Nevertheless this is the lead story on Morano's site. The author, by virtue of having been a volunteer reviewer of IPCC drafts, is referred to as an "IPCC Scientist".
Morano must be running out of ammo. This is really reaching.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
> The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities.
ALL HAIL THE FLAT GRAPH! ALL HAIL IT AS FUNDAMENTAL TO ALL ACTIVITIES!
Wow. I thought this was parady until I read further and heard the funny music. Next time I use artistic license in an illustration I'll remember to clearly label it and state that I can't be liable for the reader's imagination.
I do have one lingering question. In Trenberth's graph is "0.9% net absorbed" the absorbed energy driving an imbalance or is it aborbed by plants and converted to chemical energy?
thanks
jg
I know I'm pretty thick these days, but I can't quite work out what the claim is. Is it that the Trenberth et al paper assumes a flat earth? I don't think it does, and no evidence is produced to back up such a claim.
Secondly, there is the usual misdireaction by claiming it cooled from 2000 to 2004. So what, that is weather.
Thirdly, I see no relevance in claiming that everywhere on earth has a different energy input from output, and acting as if this is such an amazing discovery.
Their correct mathematical treatment for proving global warming would appear to involve computer modelling earily similar to that which has been carried out for decades in GCM's...
I've read a lot of silly stuff ... but that was truly amazing. I would thank you for it, but for the fit of laughing which set off the cough I've been fighting.
Are we sure ClimateRealists isn't a DenialDepot sockwebsite?
"In Trenberth's graph is "0.9% net absorbed" the absorbed energy driving an imbalance or is it absorbed by plants and converted to chemical energy?"
All we know (relatively) for sure is that it isn't escaping. Most likely it is warming the ocean.
Some of it could indeed be converted into chemical energy by biotic processes in the net, or warming and/or melting ice, or warming rocks, but probably most of it is warming the ocean.
In a steady-state world the balance would be zero. Since it isn't, we are banking that energy somewhere. Trenberth's "travesty" is that we aren't sure exactly where.
Manuel, actually the picture painted by those images is very fundamental, though it sounds funny the way you put it. If one were teaching beginning climate science, it would be very reasonable to start exactly there.
Came to this via Stout. Have to say I'm floored... sometimes the incredible - dare I say it - stupidity of some of the deniers leaves be gasping. Still, I love the comments by the denial chorus:
"Models like these show how weak our knowledge is - the hubris involved is STAGGERING, thinking we can predict the end results of changes in inputs and outputs based on such a primitive understanding of insanely complex and inter-related systems that act and re-act in such a myriad of UNKNOWN ways...
When the unknowns outweigh the knowns, it's important to admit it. Admit the weakness of your guess. Admit that any policy changes based on your guess are an extremely bad bet.
The truth can set us free but arrogance chains us to mistakes..."
So wonderfully free of irony and self awareness.
http://www.google.com/search?q=solar+energy+primary+production+plants
the first hit estimates 0.06 percent of solar energy used by primary production (photosynthesis)
If you use Scholar you get more uncertainty and fewer flat statements giving a specific number, e.g.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121447618/abstract
or
http://content.imamu.edu.sa/Scholars/it/net/gower1999remsensevir.pdf
(remember the effort to find ways to use 'greenness' from satellite imagery of the Amazon; this isn't simple stuff)
LOL. I once started to plan a wall poster that would have included all elements I know effect a local climate, around the world. I admit it is pretty hard to do on a sheet under 80cm*120cm, and has to be drawn on a quite peculiar scale (in fact, at least four different scales if one wants to include the sun's arched surface).
I think Denial Depot just became obsolete!
Oale, I think you miss the point.
These are not intended as complete models of the climate system. They are "budget diagrams".
Any time you have a conserved quantity, you can define reservoirs such that the rate of flow into and out of each reservoir always balance to zero. It's an extremely useful and general practice in science and engineering. It's related in concept to standard double entry accounting, too.
In this case, the conserved quantity is energy, and the numbers refer to average flow rates.
Well this comes from a man who think people like me (and MT) are really just tying to disprove evolution.
"Environmentalism is just the latest attempt to find a substitute for the theory of evolution and it is paradoxical that it
can be so widespread when next year (2009) is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of
the publication of his major work “The Origin of Species as the Result of Natural Selection”.
All of the basic beliefs of Environmentalism are in direct conflict with contemporary understanding of the principles
of Darwinism. Despite this fact, many scientists are supporters of Environmentalist dogmas and some are prepared
to claim that they are compatible with Darwinism."
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/GlobalScam3a.pdf
Scruffy Dan - yet more evidence the denialists are stuck in the 19the century - Darwinism died something like 80 years ago, and the field has undergone at least 2 major reorganisations since him. Sure, Darwin would get the hang of it quickly enough, but anyone using Darwinism to try and beat someone up is completely clueless.
I do think the term 'expert reviewer' needs to change. People not familiar with the IPCC process tend to get the wrong idea of what it means.
Volunteer reviewer seems like a better choice.
Post a Comment