Comments on: Its a Floor Wax and A Desert Topping

By: Waldo

Waldo — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:38:12 +0000

Very clever, hunter, very clever. Can you give me an example of either?

By: hunter

hunter — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:15:58 +0000

Waldo,
“Seems to me that WALDO and the AGW true believers are fairly dependent on the media for their information and opinions, but only under certain circumstances.”
Now that shoe fits rather well.

By: Waldo

Waldo — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:19:48 +0000

Right. Thank you, Nathan. Now I wonder, since the media appears to be a bit untrustworthy (and to be fair, it is not the media’s job to “attribute” anything, but to report on what is happening or what people say [it is not the journalist's job to decide whether the science appears to be contradictory or not])can we trust the media with stories on Pachauri or Hansen or Mann or the CRU? Or do we just point out discrepancies when it has to do with discrepancies in the GW science?

Seems to me that Mr. Meyer and the crowds here are fairly dependent on the media for their information and opinions, but only under certain circumstances.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:23:30 +0000

Reading comprehension, Waldo. Warren said right up front that this tidbit was about how the media was willing to attribute diametrically opposed phenomena to global warming, and how future activists will likely behave. As this is a post about how laypeople behave, the science of the situation is kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

By: Waldo

Waldo — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:28:06 +0000

Okay, seems like I’m always pointing out the obvious – but for people ostensibly interested in “science” you sure are dependent on a couple of particular newspapers (particularly the Times UK). So…

Both these are newspaper articles interpreting what scientists have said, so perhaps they are not the best scientific source.

One scientist, the ‘fogless’ one, is an ecological biologist and worried about the redwoods. He is hypothesizing about what will happen if there is not enough moisture in the air to interact with redwood forests.

The others are climate scientists who are doing measurements of fog and hypothesizing about the effect ocean temperatures will be having on Bay Area fog.

Probably we should believe what the climate scientists say. But even if we don’t, we are reading about two different hypotheses from two different sets of scientists. I know it is more fun to simply assault the scientific community for not having an answer on the spur of the moment, but even I know that sometimes scientists will disagree. This is part of the process.

Which just seems so obvious…

Oh well, guess it’s more fun to simply cry chicken at every opportunity.

By: AnonyMoose

AnonyMoose — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:18:39 +0000

Dunes are desert toppings.

By: Tony Hansen

Tony Hansen — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:01:04 +0000

spelling nazi:
What’s a desert topping?

Dust?

By: dearieme

dearieme — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:14:32 +0000

There’s one more eventuality. If they can predict neither more fog nor less fog, they can still predict The Wrong Sort of Fog. Just wait and see.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:04:08 +0000

@ Jim,
No, local climate moving against a general trend would not be good example of negative feedback.

The general idea is that even though the amount of energy in a system is increasing, all areas will not see a uniform increase. Some localities may see a decrease in temp because warming has moved an ocean current, or caused more rainfall, or shifted wind patterns –in their area–. The system as a whole will still be getting warmer. That’s the theory anyway.

Negative feedback doesn’t mean temps will drop, just that they’ll rise less. You really have to examine feedback as it applies to the whole planet, not just a single locality.

By: Ike

Ike — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:48:33 +0000

Anthropogenic Climate Change tastes great, and look at that shine!