Gone Fishing
Posted by jennifer, February 3rd, 2009 - under News.
Tags: Birds
“Gone Fishing” is an expression we use here in Australia to let people know that a business is closed for a period of time while the owner takes a break.
I’m off for a bit – “Gone Fishing”. Cheers,
**************
The photograph is of a pelican near Ingham, North Queensland, taken September 29, 2008.
Advertisement
464 Responses to “Gone Fishing”
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] Show All
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] Show All
“There are now over 1,000 signatures on Jen’s petition”
Will, I don’t see your name on the petition. Why not?
And what’s up with rootin for the horse during the last rodeo?
And what’s up complaining on the dirt under my fingernails and the dust on my jeans, when you never climbed your fat ass off the fence?
Something else. I don’t appreciate some dandied up dude, who is so afraid of being “wrong” that he’ll never climb down into the arena, putting the whip to a horse I just rode the rough off of.
It has the smell of cowardice.
The consensus has decided to blaim global warming for the perils of California Brown Pelicans anyway, despite there not being a toxic algae angle.
Climate change might have fooled thousands of California brown pelicans, who stayed north later than usual last year and encountered harsh winter storms on their trip south, researchers now believe.
It’s the diagnosis that covers all ills.
Luke “Nice dodge Gordon – but “Are you actually trying to bluff us (and yourself) that climate models don’t do convection !! ”
No…what I’m saying is that people who do modeling haven’t got a clue how the atmosphere works. Otherwise, the models would be in lock-step with the satellites. Lindzen, Christy and Spencer are trying to tell the modelers what’s going on but nobody seems to be home.
Pure assertion – why do believe these guys except for the fact that they’re vocal and support your POV?
Gordon – modern climatologists are modellers.
SJT “Yes, but you do agree there is a “greenhouse” effect, (although it doesn’t work like a greenhouse)”.
Given that I think I know what you’re getting at, I don’t know. It’s apparent that something is warming the Earth beyond the temperature it would be if it was just a big, dry rock orbiting the Sun. The fact that the Earth seems to have been influenced by extreme heat from its interior at one time, that it has vast oceans and that it has a complex atmosphere, kind of leaves the question open, don’t you think?
G&T are claiming there is no evidence for a greenhouse effect in physics literature and Lindzen is claiming there’s something wrong with the radiative transfer theory, which is the basis of the greenhouse effect. Both Spencer and Lindzen are claiming the heating process that raises the mean temperature from a theoretical -19 C to a +15 C is a result of a complex warming/cooling/precipitation system. That makes sense to me and doesn’t involve greenhouse theory. Although Linzen seems to concede to a certain amount of greenhouse action, he doesn’t think that GHGs beside water vapour contribute much (3%).
Questions have been raised as to whther the -19 C was actually the initial temperature. With heavy volcanic activity in prehistoric times, possibly under the oceans as well, the oceans could have been raised to a much higher temperture without a greenhouse effect. Whose to say the atmosphere and warm oceans aren’t a result of heat from internal processes? I have no idea…I’m offering the kind of conjecture that leaves the greenhouse effect a question for me rather than an answer.
A good question raised by Stephen Wilde is what warmed the nitrogen and oxygen, that account for 97% of the atmosphere? I realize the AGW crowd will claim the warming came from GHGs, but did it? Was it as Wilde claims, that the oceans warmed those gases by convection?
I’m not trying to vector off into zaniness, I seriously don’t know if the GFE has anything serious to offer considering that radiation does not seem to be a viable warming process in the atmosphere. If you include convection as the major warming transport, then you could claim some veracity for GHE, but without radiation, it doesn’t seem to add up. Real greenhouses warm through convection and a lack of air circulation. The atmosphere has that circulation, accounting for its heat transport, so there goes another plank in the GHE platform. If the atmosphere behaves like a greenhouse, somebody left it’s barn doors open.
So Gordon – heat from below in the oceans – yet the profile is one of heat penetrating not “upwelling”.
Does AGW theory suddenly not believe in convection?
James Mayeau “Antarctica is the dryest place – and it’s in a 20 year cooling trend”.
Let me explain, for Luke’s benefit, why that is so. You see, Luke, warm air rises and so does warm water. Obviously, all the warm air and warm water are rising to the North Pole, and that’s why the Arctic is warming and the Antarctic is cooling.
To add a smiley or not? If I don’t the RC and Deltoid boys will take me seriously. What the heck.
Will Nitschke re Antarctic cooling “If there is good science behind what you’re saying perhaps you can point me in the direction of it”?
http://climate.uah.edu/
James Mayeau…don’t have a source for your question but I did note the involvement of Stephen Schneider in the study. He’s the same Schneider who once suggested that a scientist had to decide between lying and not lying when it came to press releases.
Schneider is a biologist who is also a modeler. Tell me what a biologist could possibly know about the atmosphere. If he is part of the study that claims CO2 annual emissions have risen to 3.5% per year since the 1990′s, then I’m going to call him a liar whether I get prosecuted or not. That’s a 390% increase in a decade and the only way that could happen is through an outright lie or because the oceans outgassed it. It certainly has nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2. Besides, if the CO2 has risen 390% where’s the warming to go along with it?
I don’t trust Schneider. He made the ludicrous claim once that he had to ignore real data if his model told him otherwise. This guy is dangerous and it’s time we started prosecuting people like him for misleading the public.
Will Nitschke…sorry, I misread your comment re Antarctica and posted my link in a hurry, being on my way out the door. Obviously I did not read your reply correctly, an admission which will no doubt lend fodder to others who think I do that all the time.
“Gordon – modern climatologists are modellers.”
Yair, Luke. Like that lot in your last link. Stoat and Co.
The Radiosondes did not agree with the GCMs so it’s put down to climate variability.
Can’t doubt the GCMs!
“It’s the diagnosis that covers all ills.”
James,
I would have thought those pelicans were caught by weather, not climate, change.
File it under “Polar Bears”.
Gordon, you were again in too much of a rush, so wrong in detail with your wildly nonsensical calculation even if right in principle. The facts are as follows:
1. The annual average compound rate of growth of total CO2 emissions from the level at mid-1998 to that at mid-2007 was 2.09% p.a. The largest % increase in any one year was 4.55 from mid-2003 to mid-2004, but from mid-1997 to mid-1999 there were successive years of negative growth, due partly to El Nino and partly to the Asian financial crisis and resulting recessions.
2. The increase in emissions from mid-97 to mid-07 was just 23%, not 390%.
3. It is likely that there will be negative growth of emissions this year because of the GFC, already evident in the low growth of [CO2] at Mauna Loa from Jan ’08 to Jan ’09. Unfortunately Obama has surrounded himself with equal nitwits Steve Chu and John Holdren, both Stanfordians and both mates of Schneider’s; they probably learnt their mastery of compound growth rates from Allen Stanford if not Bernie Madoff.
It remains true as you said that Schneider is not a reliable source on any issue.
Tim Curtin “Gordon, you were again in too much of a rush, so wrong in detail with your wildly nonsensical calculation even if right in principle. The facts are as follows:”
Tim…I was basing my figures on the article, which claimed CO2 emissions had risen from a p.a. rate of 0.9 in the late 1900s to a p.a. in the early 2000s of 3.5%. I assumed they were talking about anthropogenic CO2 since the normal average increase p.a. for ACO2 is roughly 0.6%, accordng to Spencer. I was willing to allow them 0.9, but not 3.5% since that would be an inference typical of Schneider, and from a model.
I have no issues with natural CO2 changing dramatically but not ACO2. That’s why I raised the question of ocean outgassing, perhaps related to the 1998 El Nino.
Luke “Pure assertion – why do believe these guys except for the fact that they’re vocal and support your POV”?
I’ve answered that one for you before. All of them (Lindzen, etc.) are legitimate atmospheric physicists working in the field and doing direct observation. Those working in modeling environments, like Santer, Wigley, Hansen, etc. are working primarily with models and are showing their lack of understanding by programming the models badly.