Environment & Energy

Nederland

(9,979 posts)

80. Spencer posted Nov temps today

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:13 AM

Dec 2011

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

And admitted he got November wrong. I'm not a big fan of Spencer, but I'll give him kudos for admitting he was wrong. It would be nice if people on your side demonstrated the same level of integrity.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Arctic Methane - This Does Not Sound Good... [View all] Bob Wallace Dec 2011 OP

. XemaSab Dec 2011 #1

Known about this for Years.... fascisthunter Dec 2011 #2

Please show me the data... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #3

As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #24

Understanding methane�s seabed escape OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #26

Methane release 'looks stronger' OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #52

Feedbacks. joshcryer Dec 2011 #4

Arctic lakes, too Viking12 Dec 2011 #5

That video rules XemaSab Dec 2011 #6

All the more reason - nuclear now. nt wtmusic Dec 2011 #7

Impossible... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #8

Other way around. wtmusic Dec 2011 #9

Where did you get these numbers? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #10

You have a link? XemaSab Dec 2011 #11

Sorry... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #12

Thanks XemaSab Dec 2011 #13

Found it... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #14

Interesting article XemaSab Dec 2011 #15

Hah, what the heck were you thinking? joshcryer Dec 2011 #16

I'll just say that it wasn't the best planned trip I've ever taken XemaSab Dec 2011 #17

I gave you a link. wtmusic Dec 2011 #18

Sorry... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #19

Your modest solar proposal would cost about $740 million - every day. wtmusic Dec 2011 #25

�Solar power is totally uneconomic� OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #29

Dr. Pearce believes solar panels last 300 years, does he? wtmusic Dec 2011 #30

Oh good! OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #31

It means your posts have reached the point of charming imbecility wtmusic Dec 2011 #32

How much does the productivity of a nuclear plant decrease in a year? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #33

Obviously we don't have 300 year data... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #35

But the situation is even better than that (according to Pearce) OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #38

At 0.2% loss per year... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #41

Solar roof tiles OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #42

The glass windows in thirteenth-century Westminster Abbey Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #34

What I find even more amazing is the building of the things to start with OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #40

I was rendered immediately breathless, and was made to sit and meditate deeply Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #43

Conservation, Efficiency, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Thermal... tinrobot Dec 2011 #20

Agree. wtmusic Dec 2011 #28

We don't need to experiment... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #36

Excellent post. Nihil Dec 2011 #60

Also, tech-fix mitigation responses are required. Capture this methane Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #21

How does methane XemaSab Dec 2011 #44

I didn't do well in chemistry class (bad teacher, I claim) but does this make sense Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #47

Gotcha XemaSab Dec 2011 #49

It's even more carbon brought to the surface... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #50

Yes. But it's coming out of the ground, at present Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #51

Let's do it... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #46

Well, I did say, while we're dealing with Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #48

I'm not sure that's technically feasible, we're talking thousands of square kilometers. joshcryer Dec 2011 #55

Oops! hatrack Dec 2011 #22

Imagine a person with two different sized feet... Javaman Dec 2011 #23

lol. Nice analogy... Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #37

That was well put. Control-Z Dec 2011 #67

oh right, "Shock" stuntcat Dec 2011 #27

That's just the way "the Media" works Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #45

It's not good Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #39

Luckily, I have no kids! My ancestral carbon footprint shrinks to zero by 2040. aletier_v Dec 2011 #53

hatrack saw this coming: joshcryer Dec 2011 #54

yes. stuntcat Dec 2011 #63

Two points Nederland Dec 2011 #56

Two poor points... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #57

Right, a little over a long time is nothing, a lot over a little time is an issue. joshcryer Dec 2011 #59

20 year GWP of methane is 72x. joshcryer Dec 2011 #58

That is just one theory Nederland Dec 2011 #68

We'll see. joshcryer Dec 2011 #69

One drop doesn't say anything about the long term trend? Nederland Dec 2011 #71

I might do it again for 2012. joshcryer Dec 2011 #73

The point is simple Nederland Dec 2011 #79

Yes, and all of the long term trends indicate warming. joshcryer Dec 2011 #83

Spencer posted Nov temps today Nederland Dec 2011 #80

Thanks. Yes I respect Roy for that. joshcryer Dec 2011 #82

Yeah, Spencer is ok Nederland Dec 2011 #85

You suggested we use 18 years... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #76

You are missing the point Nederland Dec 2011 #77

Current trends? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #84

It would be helpful... Nederland Dec 2011 #86

Latest statistical review I read... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #70

Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate says 18 years Nederland Dec 2011 #72

Nope... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #74

There are FIVE major temperature records Nederland Dec 2011 #78

I don't think so... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #81

Do you understand the phrase "More importantly"? Nederland Dec 2011 #87

Here's the study I recall... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #75

Torch them. CJvR Dec 2011 #61

That's not clear... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #62

Depends. CJvR Dec 2011 #64

This was a GRL article I posted on the topic of submarine methane releases back in 2007 hatrack Dec 2011 #65

Might also be tied to isostatic rebound XemaSab Dec 2011 #66

See below OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #89

Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas � Apocalypse Not OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #88

Apocalypse Not... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #90

Let�s put it this way OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #91