TIME is not on the side of David Rose

Thanks to Greenpeace for this amazing story: Either David Rose has himself used the real (2007) cover to create the fake (1977) cover – or – he has been a little too ready to believe what he so wants to be true. Which is it David? The World is waiting for your answer.

Advertisements

About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Climate Science, Confirmation Bias, Denial, Environment and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to TIME is not on the side of David Rose

  1. Fantastic. Thanks for the heads up.

    Like

  2. Patrice Ayme says:

    I claim that we are passed the point the greenhouse effect feeds on itself. And I demonstrate it graphically: Plus I slay, with relish, a thousand dragons. Comments and feeble, attempted contradictions are more than welcome! http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/gassing-earth/

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Thanks for the link, Patrice. Feeble critique (but not contradiction) duly attempted. 😉

      Like

      • Patrice Ayme says:

        Thanks for the critique, Rick. it was helpful. You were right that I should have been a bit more explicit. Thanks for that. I added a section in the essay to hammer it in. The oceanic heat content has a sharp (in my biased eyes) non linear jump in 1990. Namely one can draw a line through the first part, until 1990, and then one afterwards, and they make a clear angle; that’s the most basic definiton of NON linear. Whereas the CO2 rise is a nearly flat, that is LINEAR line (I know it’s an exponential, but it’s nearly a flat one). PA

        Like

      • Patrice Ayme says:

        OK, to be fully rigorous, before searching for possible causes, one would have to show this non linear event is not an artifact in the data… That sometimes happens when one changes measurement methods, or software…I have seen that at NCAR, about satellite data on the Sun…

        Like

      • Rick Altman says:

        For ease of reference, I too will duplicate my comment on your blog:

        To be clear, I was not accusing you of being intellectually dishonest, I just thought you were in danger of appearing to be so. The clarification [in your blog post] is therefore probably worthwhile. However, for the record, I see only two graphs showing exponentially-increasing growth in both atmospheric CO2 and ocean heat content (i.e. neither of them should be characterised as having a linear relationship in whole or in part). If the data were available to show them both over a 250 year period, I am confident this would be much more obvious (when you focus on a short period it is easy to mistake the ‘Keeling Curve’ for a straight line). Despite all this, I suspect we have indeed passed a tipping point.

        Like

  3. Patrice Ayme says:

    (repeating the answer to YOU that I put on my site, by courtesy!) Ah Rick! Thanks for agreeing where you agree, and thanks for still disagreeing where you don’t! All right, then: There is a notion such as best fitting line (given a curve, and after choosing a notion of what it means to “fit”). I use the year 1990 as my dividing point. Then I find the best line LB(I) for the black curve of heat content, before 1990, and the best line LB(II) for the same curve after 1990. LB(I) and LB(II) make a clear angle, AB, an evidence of clear non linearity. Then I repeat the process for the RED curve of heat content, getting LR(I) and LR(II), and also for the CO2 graph, getting LC(I) and LC(II). I get the angles AR and AC. AR and AC barely exist. The argument that I use different graphs of different scales can certainly be shot down definitively by observing AR and AC are both smaller than AB. Evidence of non linear effect. OK, the effect is subtle, OTHERWISE it would have been noticed before.What say you?

    Like

  4. pendantry says:

    Thanks for the link, Rick. The comment thread on that Greenpeace article is a fun one. Note especially the ‘latest time cover‘ image by ‘petepassword’ — classic! 🙂

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Yes, I enjoyed reading it too – especially those “sceptics” brave enough to venture into the lion’s den (or rather the pirhanna-infested waters) of the Greenpeace website

      Like

      • pendantry says:

        I find it more entertaining than the inverse relationship at places like WUWT — at such venues the level of cluelessness does my head in, and makes me want to wield a big fat LART! 🙂

        Like

  5. Pingback: Another Week of GW News, June 30, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s