Search results

Not exactly. He needed a model, the toy model that one of Mentalfloss' posts mentioned, to examine the difference between forcings in the models, feedbacks, and the actual temperature change. But he treats clouds as a forcing instead of a feedback. You also have to ask, is it appropriate to...

Yes, well before everyone gets too excited, there's some problems with Spencer's study. First, the results are sensitive to which satellite data set get's used, in other words the findings are not robust. Second, there was no statistical analysis of the results, no error bars. On the first...

This is interesting news, apparently this pharmaceutical has the only license in the US to produce the pentobarbitol sodium injection that is used in the three drug lethal injection cocktail. On July 1, 2011, Danish pharmaceutical Lundbeck announced that they would be changing their end use...

Let us know when you can predict the future with certainty. That's not how the real world works, sometimes you can't wait until something happens to mitigate it. Would you wait until the asteroid is within 24 hours of striking earth before doing anything about it? That's insanity. That's...

Oh jeez, another shooting. Eight dead, including gunman, in Ohio shooting spree - CNN.com Seven people, including an 11-year-old child, were shot and killed in a small town in northeastern Ohio on Sunday in a rampage that ended when police killed the suspected gunman, authorities said. The...

He uses models in his own research...in fact his modelling was so bad that they had to adjust the satellite record to account for the negative bias introduced by orbital decay. After the adjustments his temperature dataset now agrees with the surface temperature record. The satellites don't...

Technically all scientists are skeptics. Language choice really matters...they'll jump all over statements that they disagree with. Debate is part and parcel for the job. He is skeptical in that he thinks there's no need to worry. He thinks the effects will be beneficial...he thinks the added...

John Christy? One of the only credible skeptical scientists. What he says in public and what he says with his research are pretty consistent.

I do too. A named scientific theory means it has strength. It is supported by many lines of evidence, and is strengthened by many foundations. Well radiative transfer concerns the transfer of electromagnetic radiation. The transfer is affected by the absorption, emission and scattering...

Like I said earlier, they will have to overturn radiative transfer theory to knock down the consensus position that exists for human caused climate change, and that is unlikely. This would not only have implications for climate science, but for what most would consider unrelated scientific...

There's also what's actually published...the question of whether or not man is responsible is no longer a matter of interest in the literature. That has been pretty much nailed for a while now, and the published material is looking at addressing other uncertainties in the climate system. Trying...

That's an actually very interesting question. In human terms probably never. We define climate as 30 years of average weather, and that is always changing. I find it more useful to think of climate in longer periods. Life evolves over long periods, and over long periods the climate is relatively...

It's actually closer to half. I counted them properly. I get 8/19 in decline. The number of sub-populations experiencing growth has declined, and the number declining has increased in just the last 5 years. Global warming will place another stressor on the bears. There is no question about that...

Well Bear, you and everyone else were speaking in generalities up until a few posts ago. Here's an early post of yours: THE polar bear population...of the 19 recognized populations, almost half of the sub-populations are in decline. When you brought up sub-populations, I acknowledged...

Which facts do I have problems with? :lol: You don't understand your fuzzy logic when someone else writes it? Just because climate change in the past wasn't attributable to man, does not mean that it can't be now. I used extinctions as an example of your foolish leap. Catch what the ****...

Not generally. No, you are. You are having a problem with population rebound during a period of worsening individual health. Unhealthy is your word, I never used it. I said they are showing declines in body condition, survival, and recruitment. Which is true. I wasn't actually referring to...

Not likely...

The health of a stock is not limited to the size of a population. Bears will still reproduce even when their survival is decreasing, their recruitment is decreasing, and their body condition is decreasing. I'm not sure why you are having a problem with this. The recovery is due to fewer bears...

Yes...I don't believe I ever said the climate hasn't changed, or that man was the cause of past changes. Health is in question for the scientists who study this. Maybe not for what Juan claimed, but that's not my concern

Well, I'll give you some basic facts that I give to others who ask these sorts of questions. A greenhouse gas heats our atmosphere by preventing radiation from the planet bouncing back into space. The molecule will bend or vibrate, and then release that energy in the form of heat, in any...