Joe Romm om "shout down ... talk" -- raderar kommentarer

Mest som dokumentation. Mina kommentarer var kanske lite aggressiva?

Joe Romms senaste post har rubriken "The non-blizzard of 2009 and why the anti-science disinformers try to shout down any talk of a link between climate change and extreme weather", och han presenterar bl a grafer som han menar visar att vi trots snöstorm nu har ett varmare klimat och med mindre snö än någonsin. Häromdan bloggade Romm att snöfallet nu är en "'global warming type' of record snowfall", som han alltså söker spinna till tystas ned. :-)

Jag påpekade bl a vad graferna visar och inte visar (jag hade t ex även kunnat svara att Romm -- som här argumenterade för att mer regn än normalt är enligt klimatmodellerna -- så länge det var torrare förhållanden är normalt under inledningen av detta decennium inte talade om mer regn än normalt i USA utan hävdade att USA skulle drabbas av torka).

Nu är jag visst avstängd från att kommentera på hans blogg, men jag snodde alltså ihop dessa nu raderade kommentarer samt replik till "Leif":



Min andra kommentar:

"Btw, you cherry pick data. You have average for the decades; the 2000s (00s), the 90s etc. The last two years are more negative than the 90s' average. I don't deny that the early 00s was warm until 2006/2007 (Temperatures started to fall, both UAH and RSS shows, in 2007.)

Also "consecutive season" is cherry picked type of data. It's a filter including the warm year 2006."

...varefter en Leif skrev detta:




Tyckte att Leifs svar såg ut att ligga som svar snett under min kommentar och trodde att han inledningsvis avsåg mig, så (iofs meningslöst) jag svarade:

"Hi Leif! Are you from Sweden?

Please tell me if I'm rude to you without arguments, just like you call my reply anti-science without arguments.

What is Anti Science in my reply? My reply has relevant issues about the arguments in this post.

How do you mean I slander Joe Romm? I described how this post smartly picks data, and I compared snowstorms to a post by Joe Romm where he says the collapse of a bridge in Minneapolis was caused by man made global warming. Isn't it like slander to say that someone belongs to anti-science without argue arguments?

I've not said that weather is climate. I commented this posts cherry picking, that's all. If you want one can add that there's been no statistically significant temperature increase (at least 95% confidence) since 15 years ago.

But there was a warming in the 90s. I'm not deny that. At the same time it was a large decrease in low level cloud coverage, which decreased albedo by about 2 percent (which is as a large energy balance effect as all man made CO2 emitted since the industrial revolution started).

Tornadoes and hurricanes are decreasing:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years

Currents has become slower (thus wind power produce less).

Our emissions are about 1 percent of the atmosphere's content, and about 5 percent of the Earth's natural emissions in its carbon cycle, and more than half of our emissions so far is absorbed by the biosphere and oceans (NOAA says the oceans has absorbed 49 percent, and the soil, plants, and trees absorb several percent due to other studies, and some increase is expected to come from higher temperatures).

Also the average CO2 rate the salt 55 million years was about 1000 ppm, and 55 years ago it was >2000 ppm, due to Pagani, Science (2003); graph:

http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

Finally you ask me what I think as an anti-science man. I think your words about tipping points has no base in science. The climate doesn't work as the IPCC's climate models says, but -- besides proved cosmic ray influence on low level clouds -- a new published study, by Qing-Bin Lu, shows that cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion is important.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/50_years_of_cooling_predicted

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century"

Lu's study is in concert with these extremely convincing observations:

http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-climate-engine

/Br, Magnus Andersson"

Apropå Romms tes att vi nu har extremväder på grund av varmare klimat är det alarmism som knappt behöver bemötas, men vid sidan av nämnda motsägelse från Romms sida skulle man kunna nämna att orkanforskaren Kerry Emanuel som hade idén att antal kraftiga stormar och orkaner ökar vid global uppvärmning har ändrat sig. Chris Landsea, ledande orkanforskare, menar att antal kraftiga stormar enligt klimatmodellerna inte ökar utan möjligen minskar. Se t ex andra halvan av intervjuklippet här.

-