Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-15-2010, 03:15 PM   #126
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Different perspective:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...global-warming

Reactions?

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 03:54 PM   #127
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

And another...

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07...ves-about-oil/

William Hazen
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 03:55 PM   #128
mathewjgano
 
mathewjgano's Avatar
Dojo: Tsubaki Kannagara Jinja Aikidojo; Himeji Shodokan Dojo
Location: Renton
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,224
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
I.e., when "scientists" are hiding the data, it's not really the Scientific Method, regardless if their pals "peer reviewed" the articles and said it is The Word of God. Hence the current worry about scientific corruption.

FWIW

Mike Sigman
Sorry if this has been described already, but has he offered a reason as to why he won't release all of his data? Hiding data does beg the question pretty badly to a scientist...or a wanna-be like me. On the other hand, that's not proof of anything about global weather trends either. Maybe that's just plausible deniability for him...

...Well, I hope it's not true that "studies" are being cherry-picked to fit the commercialism of Global Warming interests. I blame the fact that science is often just another form and/or tool of Big Business and Big Business-like operations. If you want to study something, you have to get funded, to get funded you have to appeal to investors...who are, all too often, special interest groups).

I took a pretty good environmental science class several years ago and it basically taught that while we see a trend toward higher temperature overall, we don't know exactly what is causing it. My sense was that CO2 held no obvious connection to the trend, but that the fear is that it might play a role in something more complex...the straw and the camel's back and all that. As also regards CO2, I know of a study at Duke which seemed to imply a little help from nature as CO2 levels continue to rise.
My understanding is that a greater danger comes from SO2 (for a variety of reasons, if I recall correctly), of which volcanism is certainly the lead producer, but which industry still adds more than we probably want in our neighborhoods.
...Robert, is it the sulfur compounds in coal that make you dislike it so much?

Gambarimashyo!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 04:03 PM   #129
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
Well, it's from January of this year and a lot of things have happened since then, so even something from 6 months ago tends to be dated, David. Let me also point out that the Guardian is considered Far Left and very strongly in the pro-AGW camp (although their top pro-AGW writer had fits about the dishonesty of the East Anglia crowd, once those emails and data were put out... it made him out to be a chump for having been a believer).

Here's a post on the Greenland Ice Sheet, showing the data involved and apparently, like has happened so many times in the past, when the data gets out the story gets quietly dropped by the media who are desperately hoping the doomsday scenario is true so their self-guilt will be justified ( ):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/1...hype-meltdown/

The other topics have changed in that time, too, but you can use the sources below to take a look. Once the Hockeystick statistics were revealed to be very dodgey, people began looking closer at everything, so it's all fun to watch. Generally speaking, the AGW followers have been getting much smaller in number.

When I see a story (I stay more current than you, apparently, but I don't follow all that closely) that is interesting, I cross-check it for starters against:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://climateaudit.org/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

If the story is interesting enough, I check the main AGW website of Gavin Schmidt: http://www.realclimate.org/ (Problem is that Gavin has been caught in a few whoppers, but regardless this is the main AGW site associated with the main AGW scientists).

Then I watch the story to see how it develops over time.

Points of correctness have been made on both sides, but the main difference I see is that the AGW crowd is too often fighting a defensive war that occurs *after* facts they didn't want known come out. It's that "we have to win the Big Game on Saturday, Judy, so it's worth telling just one whopper about" mentality that bothers me. If ethics are going out the window on one side, then everyone should just join the party, IMO.

YMMV

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 04:56 PM   #130
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Matthew Gano wrote: View Post
...Robert, is it the sulfur compounds in coal that make you dislike it so much?
Besides the strip mining of whole mountains, the massive amounts of uranium, pottasium and thorium released into the air and the slag/fly ash and sludge ponds steeping and seeping its way into the locals water what's not to like about sulfur? http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

And that is not just in West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee but elsewhere http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/7150

Last edited by Rob Watson : 07-15-2010 at 05:07 PM.

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 05:03 PM   #131
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Matthew Gano wrote: View Post
My sense was that CO2 held no obvious connection to the trend, but that the fear is that it might play a role in something more complex...the straw and the camel's back and all that. As also regards CO2, I know of a study at Duke which seemed to imply a little help from nature as CO2 levels continue to rise.
My understanding is that a greater danger comes from SO2 (for a variety of reasons, if I recall correctly), of which volcanism is certainly the lead producer, but which industry still adds more than we probably want in our neighborhoods.
Check the ice core data and note the temperature proxy LEADS the CO2 increases. Go figure.

Forget SO2 & CO2 as H2O is by far and away the most significant greenhouse gas. How about a water tax to make sure we cut the horrid emissions?

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 05:43 PM   #132
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Thanks for your response, Mike. I think you do stay more current than I, and my perspective has shifted toward's Keith's "agnosticism" as a result of this conversation, as this has the hallmarks of a live issue.

From my perspective, if we set aside the wider political uses of each side's position, this is playing out a great deal like the academic politics I saw in grad school, where each side puts its considerable intellect into trying to rebut the other.

Let me make this part clear -- I think it's wrong for a scientist to stonewall release of data and methods in order to maintain a position, for whatever combination of personal, professional, or political reasons that it may occur.

But the back and forth seems to me to be of a piece with other academic debates I've seen, and I'm willing to accept each side genuinely believes it's view to be the sounder view, and that each side has made some good points and some bad points.

I don't see bias on the part of just one group of researchers; I percieve each is committed to its position. A human reaction with good and bad to it.

It's also my sense you are right about the AGW folks being more on the defensive than the "skeptics." Part of that may relate to being thrown into the "deep end" of politics with little idea what they're about. Sitll, whatever the final outcome of the debate, it seems to me they've done themselves and the rest of us a disservice by creating good reasons to distrust the results of their work. "It's worse than a crime," as the saying goes, "it's stupid."

Regards,

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 08:02 PM   #133
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
It's also my sense you are right about the AGW folks being more on the defensive than the "skeptics." Part of that may relate to being thrown into the "deep end" of politics with little idea what they're about.
Here I disagree. The politics entered science when a group of scientists, who had the encouragement of a political faction that they believed, presented a hypothesis that they themselves were worried enough about that they hid the data. There is a huge insult implied when they begin to call people who doubt their hidden data and thereby begin to call those calling for the data "deniers". The idea of there somehow being a moral equivalency "between both sides" doesn't really agree with the actual facts. When someone calls for the proof, that doesn't make them equally guilty with the person making a potentially dishonest presentation. Let's settle the presentation first. Then let's punish the wrongdoers... all of them. Maybe that will deter people from making ridiculously false assertions. (Don't forget that there was a big movement among the AGW people to punish anyone who didn't agree with them... that's is and was fascism at it's peak flavour).

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 08:10 PM   #134
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Or, what I've always considered the classic example -- Stalin, Lysenko, and the great leap ... into famine.

Understand your perspective, Mike.

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 08:36 PM   #135
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
Or, what I've always considered the classic example -- Stalin, Lysenko, and the great leap ... into famine.

Understand your perspective, Mike.
Well, I'm troubled on a number of fronts at the movement to silence points of views that don't agree with the government in charge, the politics of the majority of academia, and so on. The efforts to silence or trivialize or demonize anyone who doesn't agree, regardless of facts or First Amendment, is a sign that a collision is coming. However, that's the sort of thing that I was talking about that occur more and more frequently as population grows or as population becomes fat, dumb, and happy. There is always someone who will pluck fat, dumb, and happy bunnies.... that's Mother Nature in action.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 09:30 PM   #136
mathewjgano
 
mathewjgano's Avatar
Dojo: Tsubaki Kannagara Jinja Aikidojo; Himeji Shodokan Dojo
Location: Renton
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,224
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Robert M Watson Jr wrote: View Post
Check the ice core data and note the temperature proxy LEADS the CO2 increases. Go figure.

Forget SO2 & CO2 as H2O is by far and away the most significant greenhouse gas. How about a water tax to make sure we cut the horrid emissions?
Does this mean I have to start buying water-vapor offsets when I water my little garden? I guess I could pay for them in part with the carbon offsets I'll earn...it's also an oxygen farm which uses CO2 as the feed.

Last edited by mathewjgano : 07-15-2010 at 09:34 PM.

Gambarimashyo!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 10:49 PM   #137
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Well, I'm troubled on a number of fronts at the movement to silence points of views that don't agree with the government in charge, the politics of the majority of academia, and so on. The efforts to silence or trivialize or demonize anyone who doesn't agree, regardless of facts or First Amendment, is a sign that a collision is coming. However, that's the sort of thing that I was talking about that occur more and more frequently as population grows or as population becomes fat, dumb, and happy. There is always someone who will pluck fat, dumb, and happy bunnies.... that's Mother Nature in action.

FWIW

Mike
Siiiiiigh With all due respect ( I would not want to victimize you )The Right has been playing the Victim Card since Truman "lost" China and the founding of the Birch Society in the 1940s. They play it every time they lose power. At least the current administration mostly appoints real scientists and folks who are actually qualified to do the jobs they are appointed to do...instead of the political hacks and cronies George W Bush was infamous for.

So your right... Nature is efficient.

William Hazen

Last edited by Aikibu : 07-15-2010 at 10:57 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 11:31 AM   #138
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Robert M Watson Jr wrote: View Post
Forget SO2 & CO2 as H2O is by far and away the most significant greenhouse gas.
Someone help me out with this one. Is it the "most significant" because of its relative abundance? Or does water as a compound trap heat energy in the atmosphere to a greater degree?

And, to the extent H2O vapor acts as a "greenhouse gas," how do liquid and frozen water affect worldwide temperatures? Don't they have a moderating effect?

Finally, how does this relate to the idea that moister air absorbs heat energy without increasing temperature as much as dry air?

Thanks for any info.

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 12:29 PM   #139
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
Someone help me out with this one. Is it the "most significant" because of its relative abundance? Or does water as a compound trap heat energy in the atmosphere to a greater degree?
You're putting your finger on why a lot of people got curious about the whole "global warming" thing. Note, BTW, that when it became apparent that the recent trend was not for warming (even with some fudged data that was caught!), the popular doomsday trend suddenly became "Climate Change", a very vague evil indeed. The idea of global warming due to manmade causes makes sense (my initial reaction was to believe it) but instead of pointing out the various contributive factors, the AGW crowd singled out CO2 as the main culprit because it is a "greenhouse gas". Except for pinning all their hopes on CO2, "global warming" would have been an easy sell and no one would have been the wiser. There are a number of reasons why the CO2 thing rings a discordant bell; trying to look up an explicative page, I came across this one:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

It has a lot of data and references (what I prefer over strict opinion pieces) that can be viewed.

Remember that most people in the physical sciences agree that the earth is warming (as it does after every Ice Age), the question has been "how much" and "how much of any warming is caused by Man?". The "how much" is a central question on which, believe it or not, the raw data is still being largely witheld. Apparently the increase is not *too* much because 1938 is still argued as being warmer than 1998... if that is still being debated, it's obvious that 1938 and 1998 must be pretty danged close to each other. 1938 wouldn't have had the CO2 buildup that is being pointed out as the reason for "global warming" today, so you can see why there are some valid questions.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 01:15 PM   #140
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Thanks Mike. This seems like an article one should read irrespective of one's "position" on the issues. At a minimum, it poses questions that need answers. Of course, I don't know enough about the overall subject for my view to add or detract from that of the authors

On the issue of H20, it did provide answers to my questions:
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
****

While it is intuitively reasonable that the most prolific and important greenhouse gas could act as a magnifier there is no evidence that it does. In fact water vapor is self limiting because it precipitates out as rain and snow and its effect also varies as cloud, with more bright low cloud acting as a cooling effect.

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 01:28 PM   #141
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
While it is intuitively reasonable that the most prolific and important greenhouse gas could act as a magnifier there is no evidence that it does. In fact water vapor is self limiting because it precipitates out as rain and snow and its effect also varies as cloud, with more bright low cloud acting as a cooling effect.
Where does the energy go? No evidence - that's a joke, right? Perhaps you would care to provide links to papers that show water has an insignificant (or at least less than CO2 or other trace gases). The fact is all the climate simulations are basically working on how water moves about the atmosphere so of course water is the critical element. One of the most glaring problems with the models is the poor understanding of cloud dynamics (really important stuff).

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 01:45 PM   #142
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
Well, that's still a 2008 article. The main question for all the AGW believers (the basic premise of which was that there was an *alarming* increase in global warming instead of the "normal after an Ice Age typical warming") is "where's the beef?".
How 'bout this one? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Granted this is still in draft form but if there are not a great number of significant points upon a reasonable person goes "huh?" while reading. One thing that I found remarkable and would certainly hope gets removed before publication is the unsupported hyperbole.

Note the 'hokey stick' has now vanished. It was never a real issue anyway because the real issue is the "A" in AGW (or lack).

I still do not see the "A" in AGW. Where is the 'baseline' for normal and natural (a.k.a expected warming trends) that we are rapidly diverging from and can clearly point to the culprits? No beef, no there, there.

On another note for the curious to ponder ... why so much effort and interest in 'adjusting' the temperature data series for UHI? The claim is the readings are biased to the warm by the energy 'consumed' in urban areas which leads to a rise in temperature. Since we should be concerned with when the energy goes are not these elevated temperatures actually important?

Consider that surface air temperature is a terrible way to monitor climate. The vast energy stored in the oceans is the 'great moderator' that drives weather and climate (as driven by the sun). Trying to model weather/climate based on surface temperatures (particularly over land) is like trying to predict which way the bull will jump by watching the fleas on his backside.

If someone claims AGW they must show (at a minimum) that observed patterns (over any time scale) are significantly different than expected based on solar forcings. Once that is established then the cause of the deviation must then be established. If the primary (or even modest) causes are found then to be man made then we have something to talk about and develop policy around. This would all fit very neatly into a single article in Nature, Science, Discovery (even), etc and even the Sunday paper (since the public needs to be well informed and can influence/be influenced in pushing policy). Anybody seen that neat little package? Bueller?

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 01:47 PM   #143
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

No, that's a quote. Another part of the quote, which you omitted, stated:

"In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds."

Maybe, after you read the article, you would be kind enough to explain to a lay person, why you think the statement about the lack of evidence that water acts as a "magnifier" is a "joke."

If you disagree with any part of the article posted, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

If you have different answers to the questions I asked, I would love to hear them.

If you know of other articles, please feel free to post a link.

Really. I'm interested in learning more.

I don't understand, frankly, the personal tone to your response. If you felt I was challenging your view, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I though I was pretty clearly asking for help in understanding what you said.

While I also noticed you reviewed the threat before Mike responded, you didn't bother to say anything at that time. Instead, when I expressed appreciation that Mike had provided an answer, you reacted with incredulity. So, what's the deal then?

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 02:05 PM   #144
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

"Where does the energy go?"

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/grnmhse85.jpg

Right, wrong, mostly wrong; what?

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 02:11 PM   #145
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
"Where does the energy go?"

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/grnmhse85.jpg

Right, wrong, mostly wrong; what?
I think that's just a general diagram indication shortwave and longwave radiative behavior. There may be some more factors that are less important, of course. Since the diagram doesn't assign percentages it's really not much more than general information and can't be "right" or "wrong" too far.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 02:19 PM   #146
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Agreed. And it doesn't do justice to its source material as a whole.

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 02:19 PM   #147
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
No, that's a quote. Another part of the quote, which you omitted, stated:

"In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds."

Maybe, after you read the article, you would be kind enough to explain to a lay person, why you think the statement about the lack of evidence that water acts as a "magnifier" is a "joke."

If you disagree with any part of the article posted, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

If you have different answers to the questions I asked, I would love to hear them.

If you know of other articles, please feel free to post a link.

Really. I'm interested in learning more.

I don't understand, frankly, the personal tone to your response. If you felt I was challenging your view, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I though I was pretty clearly asking for help in understanding what you said.

While I also noticed you reviewed the threat before Mike responded, you didn't bother to say anything at that time. Instead, when I expressed appreciation that Mike had provided an answer, you reacted with incredulity. So, what's the deal then?
Sorry but my sarcasm gets the better of me sometimes (mostly). Water is THE single most important factor but you seemed not to quite grasp that. That the sun and water are not commonly understood as the primary components of what we are talking about is beyond my ability to be level headed. Please feel free to ignore my commentary and just look at the referenced materials. What do I know anyway?

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 02:30 PM   #148
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
Agreed. And it doesn't do justice to its source material as a whole.
One picture may be claimed worth 1000 words but there is way more than that behind the picture so there is a natural loss of info in the presentation.

One thing to note is the strong indication that more energy goes into the soil than into the air. Maybe soil temperature (energy) is a better indicator than surface air temperature ... I'm pretty sure the temperature stations do not monitor soil temperatures so there is a considerable lack of data in this respect. I'm sure one can imagine the vagaries of diurnal cycle is moderated considerably ~ 1 meter below the surface.

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 02:37 PM   #149
C. David Henderson
Location: Santa Fe New Mexico
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 606
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

I think you misunderstood the article's use of the term "magnifier," which has to do with positive feedback loops.

I wouldn't ask for your view if I didn't think you knew quite a bit.

David Henderson
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 02:59 PM   #150
Rob Watson
Location: CA
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 697
United_States
Offline
Re: Brrrrr Global Warming

Quote:
Charles David Henderson wrote: View Post
I think you misunderstood the article's use of the term "magnifier," which has to do with positive feedback loops.

I wouldn't ask for your view if I didn't think you knew quite a bit.
From the website you referenced.

Quote:
Junkscience wrote:
However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of the feedback can differ according to the composition, thickness, and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have suggested a lesser climate sensitivity."

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, pp 6-7,
Committee on the Science of Climate Change
National Research Council
Often the answer, indeed, even the questions, are not so simply put.

"In my opinion, the time of spreading aikido to the world is finished; now we have to focus on quality." Yamada Yoshimitsu

Ultracrepidarianism ... don't.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Breathe for life - Warming up David Yap Training 40 10-19-2003 11:01 AM
Warming up knees? Daniel Mills General 20 05-24-2003 07:51 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:50 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate