Although somewhat unsure of what exactly it is, I have joined Technorati, driven insane with jealousy (and incredulity) by LM's top listing there under "climate": http://technorati.com/blogs/climate. Although it looks to me that there is no assessment of quality in their ranking.
So this is an experiment, this post is supposed to be tagged as: climate.
[Update: RC now includes "climate" (it was just "climate science") in its tags, and now stomps Lubos into second place. I'm in fourth... come on folks, link to me and put me into second!]
your blog must be cited five times as much compared to what it has been cited so far to compete with the currently most authoritative climate blog in the world. Good luck.
Thanks for your understanding,
Incidentally, you would not figure it out yourself, so I must help you. The way how you "tag" your blog is not any helpful for you to appear in the list.
Also, as the 75% owner of your blog, I tried to increase the total worth of your blog, see here. So The Reference Frame is now the 5th most important blog that gives your blog visibility and value. You should at least add a link to The Reference Frame to trade. The value of such a link would be roughly 3 times lower than what I am giving to you, but it would at least be an attempt to be fair. ;-)
Global warming trend was just found on Mars. See the most important climate blog. As a modeller, do you have an explanation? Or are the Martians who cause the anthropogenic global warming your final answer?
Hi Lubos. RC blows you away.
The erosion of the Martian dry ice polar icecaps simply may be a positive feedback effect, triggered by a very small change of some sort. The feedback would be - more CO2 in the atmosphere -> more heat from the Sun retained -> more sublimation from the ice caps -> more CO2 in the atmosphere.
I don't see any RC anywhere. Who is RC?
It does not look so on the page of the climate blogs.
Hi Lubos, that was pretty lame... I think you're capable of following links. Anyway, what you want is climate science...
Arun: the martian stuff comes up every now and again, but never from anyone serious. You'll notice the total absence of quantification and the vagueness of the "trend".
why not? I have no problem with your comment except that it is just a verbal answer, not a model.
But CO2 is the natural gas on Mars - it makes up 95% of the atmosphere there. It's much like things like Nitrogen, water, oxygen, and others on Earth.
And again, there are no humans.
The link that William offered is no list of important blogs. It's a list of all blogs that contained a tag "climate", and it's not sorted. This is why it may contain such trash.
Dunno about models, but the following is interesting:
Finally, the fact that the atmospheric surface pressure is today remarkably close to a value of 6.1 millibars, called the "triple point" of water below which liquid water is unstable, suggests that the atmosphere is self-limiting. If the atmosphere were to become thick enough for sufficient greenhouse warming to facilitate liquid water periodically at the surface, the CO2 would get removed as carbonates and tend to draw the atmosphere gradually back down to 6.1 millibars. This may be the reason for the particular value of the atmospheric pressure (and hence density) on Mars that we observe today.
Anyway, Lubos, if you're going to complain about global warming models of earth, you should be less quick to infer some solar system wide effect because of some observations on Mars. If you follow links I provided, Mars, though simpler than Earth, is still exceedingly complicated.
I am generous enough to leave the tag "climate science" to your colleagues - where only two blogs are listed - and keep the priority on "climate" with almost 10 blogs or so.
The global warming on Mars is absolutely quantitative. For example, it is measured to be a 10 feet retreat of the polar cap per Martian year, and so forth.
You're absolutely ridiculous if you want to say that this is not a serious research. It is based on NASA data who are roughly 100 times more serious and more funded than you plus your global warming crackpot friends.
Thanks for your understanding
I sympathize with all your comments and the attached materials - it's plausible. I also agree that Mars may be simpler but it's still hard.
But if we only ask whether the climate - and the volume of CO2 ice caps - is changing a lot naturally, the answer has been given and it is Yes.
Lubos, all I can say is that you have easy access to the science library of a great university, while for me that is rather difficult; so you could look up the actual published research on Mars rather than relying on what's on the internet.
Hi Lubos. Is your grip on reality is loosening? Have you actually looked at the listing for climate blogs? RC has blown you away. Sadly I'm only #4, though.
You say "The global warming on Mars is absolutely quantitative". Errm, so: what is the magnitude, in K, of the trend per decade? How many data points is it based on? Is it based on actual temperature measurements, or proxies? If proxies, how well have those been calibrated? What spatial fraction of the planet is represented by these measurements?
The answer to all these questions is: no one knows; few (is it any better than a trend line drawn through 2 points?); proxies; not at all; little.
You misrepresent me when you say "this is not a serious research". Of course its serious. What it isn't, though, is a serious attempt (in any way comparable with even the weakest of terrestrial attempts) to measure the trend in temperature on the planet.
And basing credibility on funding... is an argument you would soon reverse if it suited you. Is the GW consensus, in your opinion, more credible that the septics because more funding goes to the majority?
William, I think "stomped" is far too kind. In mustelid terms it would be "ripped into small unidentifiable pieces" and in string theory jargon I think only "annihilated" will do. If I had a blog I'd link to you to help complete the humiliation, but alas I do not.
Hi Steve - come on man, you've got a lot to say, how can you possibly not want a blog? And anyway, you can always create a nearly-blank one just to point to me :-))) In fact... hmmm...
What, maybe "Steve's empty and when I say empty I mean empty unlike some people who clearly weren't serious about it and then after it started filling up didn't even change the name to accurately reflect the new less empty state blog"? Not that I have anyone in particular in mind here. :)
You just can't trust some people :-)
yebbut at least when I go on holiday, my reader has no reasonable grounds for complaint...
I'd like to say this is my first-ever post with more than 20 comments. I think. Thank you all.
Oh, and to all of you irritating by having to do the stupid word-verification thing to comment: I have to do it too, on my own blog! I think blogger needs an update. Still it does remove the spam: I dread the day when some clever bod works out how to get past them.
Thank you all? You probably wanted to say Thank you, Lubos. If you add my blog to "other opinions" on realclimate.org, I will add your blog on mine and you will have lots of articles with 20+ comments.
Post a Comment