Voting closed TODAY Jan 13 at 5PM Eastern, 2PM Pacific time.
Preliminary ending numbers are available here
Thanks to everyone who participated. The results won’t be final until reviewed by the judges/operators. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. – Anthony
Congratulations to WUWT and to all.
Unless there are some post vote shenanigans, I think you’ve got it. Congrats!
@Robert Austin
Can you give me your source please.
Also, “If we look at paleolithic levels of CO2 which have been many times higher than the present level of CO2, we know that there cannot be a strong positive feedback effect because a strong feedback would lead to an unstable climate system and we would not be here today.”
We are at near historical levels if we dig (no pun intended) through the geologic record. What’s interesting is that the earth tends to do things slowly, and can typically handle variations in inputs of CO2 that occur on natural time scales. What takes the earth ~10,000 years to do, humans have done in 100 years wrt CO2 concentrations.
On a more general note, I would also like to say I am not advocating one thing or another, only that we keep things grounded in science. The truth lies in science, and as long as we are honest as we approach the problems the truth will be ours at the end of the day. Throwing around half truths and disinformation is a disservice to all.
Congratulations, Anthony! Well done.
I Think WUWT won!
Everything is going to work towards the good. All that negative stuff from the Daily Kos, and PZ it is driving people over here to check out the website. I bet your website hits go up after today.
People reading articles and comments (other that than this one’s) will find thoughtful scientific analysis of data. They’ve been told we are flat earther’s. Let them check us out for themselves. See if they have been told the truth.
Congratulations! very happy you won, I feel like we all won and now it’s over and can go get some work done.
Haven’t been able to access the “finalist” website for the past two days.
Congrats Anthony! It’s nice to see you get some recognition for all the work you put into this site. Keep up the good work. People like me definitely appreciate it.
Yeah, congratulations, Anthony! And to Climate Audit, too, for kicking RealClimate’s butt!
@Lotharloo
“What a moronic remark. You equate priests with scientists, the religious dogma with scientific consensus and the ancient practices of science with the modern scientific method”
Lemaitre? Mendel? Copernicus? …
Looks like WUWT won (assuming there’s no Chicago type graveyard vote)
Congratulations !
Benjamin P. (13:35:12) :
wrote: @ur momisugly Roger Sowell
Climate v. Weather
Weather is a data point.”
And, perhaps climate is merely a series of weather data points, integrated over time.
Or, is climate what the books say, as in The Mediterranean has a pleasant climate. Or, the Sahara Desert has a dry, arid climate. Or, the Amazon jungle has a hot, humid climate. Or, the New Yorkers moved to the Southwest to live in the healthier climate there. I have read all of those statements over the years.
I take your point, though. A single value for anything is almost meangingless, unless one has some context for it. If I tell you my son batted 0.400 in his baseball season, you might not be impressed if you knew nothing of baseball. If he was in the major leagues, and you knew baseball, you would be very impressed. But, if he was in high school, and you knew that such batting is not unusual, you would not be as impressed. But, being a nice guy, you would likely congratulate me anyway.
In any event, the point is valid that when this globe cools so that the current weather in Michigan is the norm rather than the exception, we have a climate change. By definition. And Houston, We Have A Problem.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
wattsupwiththat (13:47:59) :
It ain’t over till its over…
It is now. 🙂
WUWT 14,150
PZ Myers 12,238
It’s after 5:00, and it looks like WUWT is the clear winner! Woo-hoo! Final vote looks to be: WUWT – 14,150, Pharyngula – 12,238. Science wins!
Victory is sweet.
The results still have to be reviewed by the contest judges. I’ll wait to hear from them before declaring anything.
Lookin’ good, Anthony!
Congratulations!
A laurel wreath donation will be placed on your brow :0)
nichole:
i’m a straight up troll. what’s your excuse?
nichole, I’ve been dying to find out what value or purpose the Political Scientists and Strategists think the tactic of “trolling” an alleged opponent’s blog has. It must be based upon some psychodynamic theory concerning how to influence people, unless perhaps it’s also intended to test out arguments and mine for the “opponents'” responses so as to then further prepare for them, maybe by issuing a pre-emptive meme to the supporters and Public, for example.
So, nichole, if it is not inconsistent with your mission as a troll, perhaps you could explain to me the theory behind trolling. [But don’t do anything unethical simply on my account or something which might cost you your job!]
nichole: your
the opinion of the scientific community, which is more educated and specialized is > the opinion of the unwashed masses!!!
Really? From previous comments of yours, I gather you put yourself in the “unwashed masses” category. Are you saying your opinion does not count in this debate?
Personally, I have great respect for the “wisdom of crowds”.
congrats
Congratulations, WUWT!
Thanks TomT!
It’s tough to pin down what the “normal temperature” of the Earth is when we are dealing with billions of years of earth history. I suppose, given the fact that climate variation often has to with the effects on us as humans, looking at the “normal’ temperature over the last 100,000 years would be most prudent.
I can emphasize well with your skepticism with the predictions associated with climatic models and the ‘worst case’ scenarios that make the headlines in our media. We’ll never know the full ramification of climate change until they have happened, which one way or another, will in fact happen.
I will make a strong argument that as a by-product of “fighting global warming” results in a weening off of fossil fuels that can only be a good thing. As you all know, oil is a finite resource on this ball of rock, and one way or another, we will someday stop using it. Id rather begin the process now, while we have some time, rather then waiting for the day when its too late.
Cheers,
Ben
@Benjamin P. (10:09:42) :
“Respectfully, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas (Physics tells us that) and doubling it would have a profound effect, even if it is still in trace amounts. You can deny anthropogenic climate change all day long if you want, but you are being scientifically dishonest with your claims about CO2.”
Sorry, I can’t let this go. According to “Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere”, J. Barratt, Energy & Environment, vol16, No. 6 (2005) it is clear that CO2 is anything BUT a “potent greenhouse gas”. To quote from the paper (page 1042):
“If the concentration of CO2 were to be doubled in the absence of the other
GHGs the increase in absorption would be 1.5%. In the presence of the other GHGs the same doubling of concentration achieves an increase in absorption of only 0.5%, only one third of its effect if it were the only GHG present.”
The effect of doubling CO2 concentration from 285 to 570 ppmv will be to increase its greenhouse impact from 19.6% to 20.5%. This cannot be regarded as particularly significant, and certainly not a “profound effect”.
The assertion made by AGWers is that CO2 then drives temperature up due to “positive feedback” from water vapour. This assumption is however unproven scientifically, and in fact appears from all the evidence to be simply incorrect, otherwise we should still be showing runaway warming, since CO2 levels have continued to rise.
Benjamin P. again :
“Also, long term trends are whats important to look at. Sure this may be a cooler winter in the northern hemisphere, which is good for sea ice production, but its just one data point.”
It is true that long term trends are important in climate science. In fact thirty years is regarded as a single data point usually. That is why it is necessary to examine the long-term history. We have been warming for some time, ever since we came out of the Little Ice Age around 1850 or so. Prior to that in the MWP it was somewhat hotter than now. The rate of warming currently is not unnatural, and in fact currently the trend right now is pretty flat. The steep rise from the 70s to 2000 appears to follow the PDO and sunspot influences quite well, and now that sunspots are down and the PDO appears to be reversing the temperatures are dropping slightly.
The polar bears were never in danger, the Arctic ice is growing again, the Antarctic never stopped growing anyway, and sea level rise is slowing too. Not that its rate of around 2mm/yr was ever a problem anyway, since it is slower than tectonic movements in most places, which are measured in cm/yr in places.
So the question really is “where did all that global warming hysteria come from anyway?”
Congratulations from Denmark. As it is not a NASA review I have faith in their fairness.
“In any event, the point is valid that when this globe cools so that the current weather in Michigan is the norm rather than the exception, we have a climate change. By definition. And Houston, We Have A Problem”
Roger that.
I have a feeling that the earth will be warmer, because the data leads me to believe that. But regardless, its important, form a communication standpoint of scientific ideas, that we make sure we understand the difference between climate and weather.
My grandparents live in North Dakota, and I can tell you, if they just looked at the weather today, they would be strong opponents to the idea of climate change.
Ben