Antarctica Haiku
The peninsula has warmed.
Has the center cooled?
In case some of you don’t know, Jeff Id and Ryan have posted a discussion of their reconstruction of Antarctica. You can read it here I don’t know enough about applying these reconstructions to say whether they will hold up. However, they appear to be running some decent tests of their model’s skill.
Also, I think I’ll ask Ryan permission to create a mug so he can open a cafe press store and make Antarctica mugs.
Written by lucia.Comments Closed: If you would like them re-opened, Contact Lucia
Comments
morley (Comment#13985) May 28th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
RealClimate will not allow me to visit their website. Verrrry interesting inasmuch as I have never blogged there. The onscreen message says I need to log in. Can anyone explain? I did recently visit Air Vent. Any connection?
Morley
lucia (Comment#13986) May 28th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I can’t access them either. Their server is probably having difficulties. (I sometimes have those too. I complain to my hosting service and they fix it.)
Ryan O (Comment#13987) May 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Hehe . . .
. . . I get my own Haiku! And the Antarctica mug idea is cool.
lucia (Comment#13988) May 28th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Ryan, I’ll have to make one up and show you. Ideally, we could make 12 coasters, one with each of your tiles. That would be really fun.
Stuart Huggett (Comment#13989) May 29th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Lucia
I got a Malware warning when visiting just now. I am using Safari on a Mac and do not expect it to infect me – do you know why this is??
Jonathan (Comment#13990) May 29th, 2009 at 1:14 am
Same problem with chrome/xp: “The website at rankexploits.com contains elements from the site odmarco.com, which appears to host malware”. Posting this with Opera which reports nothing.
Ian (Comment#13991) May 29th, 2009 at 2:25 am
I like the coaster idea – any chance of one that change between the warming and cooling as your coffee goes cold – as surely Steig and Mann must have got though a lot of the stuff to keep it showing their version.
VG (Comment#13993) May 29th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Great day for science today
1. Svensmarks Video’s here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
2. Ryan’s Posting here
lucia (Comment#13994) May 29th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Hmmm… I don’t know the cause. I’ll turn off the tip jar plugin for now. That’s new.
lucia (Comment#13996) May 29th, 2009 at 7:34 am
Ian– The warm/cold coaster idea is great. Unfortunately, the only thing I can do easily is put images on whatever is offered at cafepress. So, the warm/cold coasters aren’t possible.
Air Vent Makes a Splash « the Air Vent (Pingback#14001) May 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
[...] rankexploits.com/musings/2009/antarct… [...]
Ryan O (Comment#14004) May 29th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Lucia,
Got your email.
I absolutely have to figure out a way to work that in. Besides, a few old-school references look cool and official.
VG (Comment#14009) May 30th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Prediction: This site will be soon classified as a skeptic/denialist site for daring to post Ryan’s work as so on and on…. Lets wait and see……
lucia (Comment#14010) May 30th, 2009 at 8:03 am
VG– I’m not too concerned about how my site is classified. I’m pretty sure that activists already classify it as a skeptic site. Schneider called Pielke SR. a skeptic. He’s not.
Andrew_KY (Comment#14011) May 30th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Anybody who looks at the data objectively has to be at least a skeptic, reasonably. You can’t look at a pile of dung, point to it and call it a Double Pepperoni Pizza, and be serious about it.
Andrew
John M (Comment#14014) May 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
lucia (Comment#14010)
According to these guys, you’re already bi-polar.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
You personally are listed under “Skeptical Blogs”, but The Blackboard is listed under “Neutral Sites”.
I think you ought to be under “Personalities”.
Jeff Id (Comment#14019) May 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
John M (Comment#14014) May 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Why isn’t skeptical the same as neutral?
lucia (Comment#14020) May 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
JohnM–
Technically, skeptical is neutral.
Ryan O (Comment#14022) May 30th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
It used to be that way until somehow the word “skeptic” got turned into a pejorative and a near-synonym with “denier”.
lucia (Comment#14023) May 30th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
RyanO–
Yes. That’s what’s happened. The politics surrounding the science has resulted in there turning arguments into labels. For the most part, I’m just not going to worry about it.
Ryan O (Comment#14027) May 31st, 2009 at 6:01 am
It’s like we’re back in 2nd grade – “I know you are but what am I?” Haha.
lucia (Comment#14030) May 31st, 2009 at 6:47 am
Ryan O–
I think lot of people don’t want to argue ideas on their merits. Also, many don’t distinguish between discussing a specific issue and “the whole ball of wax. Also, when the specific individual points don’t go their way on the merits of the arguments, they want to switch to arguing by labels.
There was a hilarious blog post somewhere that was trying to argue about the whole issue by giving various deniers and skeptics all sorts of weird labels and then doing some armchair amateur phsychological diagnosis. I’m going to have to find that!
Raven (Comment#14037) May 31st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Armchair psychology on alarmists blogs is very common. It is just another form of ad hominum attack.
What frustrates me most about this debate is people can’t seem to understand that science is inherently uncertain and that any discussion about what to do about the uncertain science is a political question where the costs be weighed against the uncertainties.
What frustrates me more are alarmists who insist the AGW science is certain enough to justify a radical redesign of the economy yet reject less uncertain science that shows that nuclear power is safe.