tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post6687489356323398195..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: For Peat's SakeTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-87747164701887116802020-01-15T16:37:37.083-05:002020-01-15T16:37:37.083-05:00Hey, there is a broken link in this article, under...Hey, there is a broken link in this article, under the anchor text - Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change<br /><br />Here is the working link so you can replace it - https://selectra.co.uk/sites/selectra.co.uk/files/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change%20(1)%20(1).pdfcarlyjjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12714329691517717253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-375027510239740472019-05-26T12:02:34.207-04:002019-05-26T12:02:34.207-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.pay for essayshttps://writepaperfor.me/pay-for-essaysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-91462372656382705132013-05-01T17:24:42.834-04:002013-05-01T17:24:42.834-04:00Among other subjects, cloud cover seems to be one ...Among other subjects, cloud cover seems to be one of the big question marks in climate modeling. I remember a couple of years ago when I was perusing a NASA website, I came across a page talking about the complexity of cloud modeling. The scientist made a statement that in order for cloud modeling to become even remotely accurate, computer processing would have to increase by orders of magnitude. Obviously, this hasn't happened in the last couple of years. On a side note, I can't cite the exact webpage and scientist because the entire article seems to have been removed from NASA servers.Joz Jonlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15257549384930372685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-89064274528747265582012-11-19T01:31:13.971-05:002012-11-19T01:31:13.971-05:00The pity of it is that he is the most monumentally...The pity of it is that he is the most monumentally talented writer I know personally. When he actually writes stories, his talent just manages to rise above his narrow-minded self-righteousness, or at least to turn them to strengths somehow. Otherwise... http://fpb.livejournal.com/570852.html . I guess Tolstoy, with his fanatical personality so surprisingly joined to narrative genius, must be seen as a parallel.F.P.Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06758644014524735007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-40565393580245361242012-11-18T17:23:10.626-05:002012-11-18T17:23:10.626-05:00TOF especially like his comment: "I hardly me...TOF especially like his comment: "I hardly mention Michael Flynn because, seriously, who the heck is he?" If he indeed wrote that in 2010, how can he call himself a reviewer? TOF may not be the biggest name in the box, but he has shown up on a Hugo ballot or two, and has a couple of French and Japanese awards to his credit. My goodness. <br /><br />But how can he say that <i>Fallen Angels</i> did not take global warming seriously when its entire premise was that pollution-induced global warming was real! It was only the irony that GW was the only thing holding back the glaciers. And as was said above, the writing took place when global cooling was still <i>au courant.</i><br /><br />Most amusing of all, he had no objection to the satire targeting creationists and others of whom he disapproves. It is only when his own tribe is satirized that he has attacks of the vapors. He does not see how "anti-scientific" covers both cliques. Perhaps never having gotten into conversation with some. He also overlooks the reversals: there are quite sensible environmentalists (and others) in the book. <br /><br />How can one complain when an over-the-top romp goes over the top? Does he suppose that Jonathon Swift really proposed eating Irish babies? TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-31047439697288681402012-11-18T15:23:39.687-05:002012-11-18T15:23:39.687-05:00Have you seen this review? http://inverarity.livej...Have you seen this review? http://inverarity.livejournal.com/48846.htmlF.P.Barbierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06758644014524735007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-39427328407182529452012-11-18T15:12:56.996-05:002012-11-18T15:12:56.996-05:00My favorite part about your blog is that you don&#...My favorite part about your blog is that you don't trash people who disagree with you. So MANY bloggers resort to mudslinging when they post about climate change. It is refreshing to read what you have to say -- and glean what I can understand from your observations, inferences, and thoughts.<br /><br />Thanks.GuyStewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01268114053763665577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-2552626543013485062012-11-18T13:25:37.631-05:002012-11-18T13:25:37.631-05:00Naturally, CO2 has an effect. It is logarithmic. ...Naturally, CO2 has an effect. It is logarithmic. That is, each successive increase in CO2 has a smaller effect than the preceding one. That is why the current models employ feedback mechanisms to "amplify" the basic effect of CO2. And while the Arrhenius equation is beyond doubt, the feedbacks employed are more problematical. The modelers, for example, suppose that cloud cover <i>warms</i> the earth rather than <i>cools</i> her. <br /><br />Furthermore, the largest impact predicted by the models is warmer northern hemisphere winter nights, which does not sound catastrophic at all. I would not be surprised to learn that human activity has some effect. After all, there is the emergence from the LIA to consider: possible effect of "throwing another log on the fire." But I would be surprised if the effect were as great as the alarmists want to believe. <br /><br />And that increased CO2 levels delay that glacial inception was the background assumption behind <i>Fallen Angels.</i> <br />TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-85127472006476269712012-11-17T23:16:21.393-05:002012-11-17T23:16:21.393-05:00I will admit, I'm only a layman when it comes ...I will admit, I'm only a layman when it comes to the issue of climate change. The trend over the last 150 years seems to be a warmer climate. But whether we have a <i>causally complete</i> picture of why that is, I don't know. Human industrial activity at least <i>appears</i> to be a significant factor.<br /><br />Some questions:<br /><br />You talk a lot about the impact of solar activity on earth's cooling and warming, but what about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing" rel="nofollow">orbital forcing</a> and the impact that has on glacial and interglacial periods?<br /><br />And how do anthropogenic CO2 emissions effect how we move in and out of those glacial periods? For example, <a href="http://geosci-webdev.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf" rel="nofollow">this paper</a> [PDF] which discusses how dramatic changes in greenhouse gases can turn a natural initiation of glaciation into a "movable trigger."<br /><br />(The above-cited paper seems to track with others who have suggested that increased CO2 levels delay that glacial inception. See <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1358.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)<br /><br />In other words, have we delayed the next glacial inception? If we have, that's probably not a bad thing, since another ice age wouldn't be good for us. But what if we go too far in the other direction, and the warming factors outstrip the cooling factors, and cause trouble anyway?<br /><br />And could anthropogenic emissions have any substantial effect on climate changes as a result of another Maunder Minimum? In other words, if we had another Maunder Minimum, would we expect the same results as the Little Ice Age, given there is much more CO2 kicking around in the air now. Maybe things wouldn't happen the same way now.<br /><br />As you said: <i>"another day" means things will not be the same a second time.</i><br /><br />Again, I'm a layman on this topic and it's not one that I tend to discuss for that reason. I try to read widely from proponents and skeptics alike on this issue, but I can never really come to any firm conclusions.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.com