Recent Comments

Prev  1004  1005  1006  1007  1008  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  Next

Comments 50551 to 50600:

50551. Doug Bostrom at 15:01 PM on 24 December 2012
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       Philippe: Ideologues pushing this nonsense in the opulent comfort of Western countries that have well established, stable, democratic goverments would be well served to go experience what life is like in countries that have no effective goverment. Basically, it's hell... Good government is like an efficiently functioning electric utility, remarkable mostly because so much of it has become invisible to us, taken for granted. We may complain about the rates we pay for electricity but what's far worse is flipping a switch and having no lights come on. Good government is like no government in the mutual feature of invisibility.
50552. bjchip at 13:01 PM on 24 December 2012
       Arctic continues to break records in 2012: Becoming warmer, greener region with record losses of summer sea ice and late spring snow
       Hmmm... I make it 2017... but we'd need to define "Ice Free" to make it more real. I am pretty sure this was done over at Tamino's site too :-) I am however, further predicting that it won't make a lick of difference to CEI, Heartland, Watts, Limbaugh, Inhofe or Monckton.
50553. Philippe Chantreau at 12:20 PM on 24 December 2012
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       I'll add that talking about entrenched individuals when discussing a US goverment agency is also moot. The leadership of these agencies is subject to the vagaries of elections and changes in fact more often than desirable for consistency and follow-up of long term actions. The 2 consecutive Bush administrations appointed leaders for the EPA under whom the enforcement process slowed to a crawl, effectively rendering the agency toothless. I note that Markx also establishes his strawman of choice by suggesting that proponents of goverment involvement have the illusion that government will always act in the interest of most people. Ridley shares in that fallacy, as far as I can tell (I don't really have the time to dwell in his ramblings). Of course, since nobdy and no group of people is perfect, this is not the case, the strawman is an especially easy one to set on fire. But that's a very different contention that saying that the overall sum of government actions will result in mostly adverse consequences, a step that Markx and Ridley seem eager to take as if it logically followed. Ideologues pushing this nonsense in the opulent comfort of Western countries that have well established, stable, democratic goverments would be well served to go experience what life is like in countries that have no effective goverment. Basically, it's hell: Life run by whatever local maffia manages to scare other groups by violence; corruption as a way of life; merit and competence relegated as useless ornaments of one's persona, because connections are the only thing that matter. I've lived on 3 continents and a large island, and visited other places too. It takes more than ideologically driven rethoric to convince me. Ideology almost never passes the test against reality. The other strawman is that any kind of new government action is a step toward non-democratic government. This argument has been around for so long that you'd swear by now we should be in a full blown dictature.
50554. Philippe Chantreau at 11:48 AM on 24 December 2012
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       Markx if you agree with all the points I made that you have listed, then you agree that your original argument, to which these points constituted a response, was bunk. Strong environmental regulations are the hallmark of free countries where citizens care about their quality of life. As for the EPA/market comparison, you are the one who brought up "entrenched individuals" bent on "enriching themselves" implying that this is what the EPA is about. I said that it was grotesque. I maintain that view and note that you have failed to provide examples of real individuals who would have verifiably conducted such evil deeds. My example, however, adapted from your piece of rethoric with a few changed nouns can be supported by actual events and actual people who have actually screwed the entire world to the point of driving some countries' economies near total collapse. That is where the comparison resides: Same language, different actors, one is real and heavily documented, the other is fed to you by ideologues and fictitious. Now, I'm sure that some instances of corruption and systemic failure can be found in the EPA process, as no human endeavor will ever be flawless. However, the consequences will be orders of magnitude smaller than the mess thrown upon us by the finance barons. And no, I am not going to list names, it can be found all over Google, books have already been written about it, etc.
50555. JoeT at 11:39 AM on 24 December 2012
       Add Frame and Stone to the List of Papers Validating IPCC Warming Projections
       Great, Dana, I'll be looking forward to it. Thanks to you and others here for the great work that you all do. I've learned a lot, although I have a lot more to go. If I can put in a request -- I'm very interested in understanding more about the physics of drought. More than just "the wet gets wetter and the dry dryer." I think this is a crucial issue that the world is going to have to face right now -- not some decades in the future. I've been reading the interesting papers of Isaac Held of the GFLD, but I'd like to know more about the assumptions that go into the various models, as well as the contradictions between models and the ramifications.
50556. Doug Hutcheson at 11:32 AM on 24 December 2012
       2012 SkS Bi-Weekly News Roundup #11
       Wouldn't it be nice to be able to link to an equal number of articles reporting actual, solid progress in the war on AGW? It seems all we are hearing are apologies and excuses, but no tangible deliveries. At least we in Australia can look at our brand-new carbon pricing scheme with some satisfaction. Even though it is still too little to be of significance, it does lay a foundation for future meaningful actions. With a change of government expected in 2013, can we realistically hope that the conservative side of politics will keep up the good work started by the progressives? I have a bad feeling the answer is "no".
50557. Bob Loblaw at 10:20 AM on 24 December 2012
       CO2 effect is saturated
       curiousd, Tom: q is almost certainly specific humidity (mass of water vapour per unit mass of moist air). Humidity units can be quite confusing - the only one that makes sense to everyone is relative humidity, and it's the one that is most useless for serious work. Other common ones: e - vapour pressure (partial pressure of water vapour) r - mixing ratio (mass of water vapour per unit mass of dry air) Td - dew point temperature (temperature at which air would reach saturation if cooled) Conversion between various forms is a common torture test subject in undergraduate meteorology courses.
50558. Tom Curtis at 09:55 AM on 24 December 2012
       CO2 effect is saturated
       curiousd @193, I am not familiar with that model, so I can't be much help. However: lev = Level, numbered from the top of the atmosphere (32 km) p = atmospheric pressure at that level z = altitude in kilometers T = temperature Unfortunately I cannot help you with q.
50559. Tom Curtis at 09:50 AM on 24 December 2012
       Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
       curiousd @94, I am not up on the maths used by Foster and Rahmstorf, but my understanding is that they took four indices, one each for solar, ENSO, and volcanic activity, and a linear trend; and regressed them against the temperature record. The only check that these are all the factors involved is that the residuals have a normal distribution. Using this method, if there were a fifth factor whose activity was highly correlated with one of the four factors used by Foster and Rahmstorf, its effects would have been included with the regression of that factor. Thus, if stratospheric H2O was causing a near linear cooling trend in surface temperatures, it would have been included in the analysis simply as a reduced global warming signal (the linear trend) and the linear trend should be interpreted as the consequence of two factors (increased GHG forcing plus decreasing stratospheric H2O) rather than the consequence of one. Alternatively, as stratospheric temperatures are significantly effected by solar activity, the effect of reduced stratospheric H2O may by highly correlated with the solar signal. As Sphaerica points out, the test of this supposition would be to find an index of stratospheric H2O, and to repeat Foster and Rahmstorf's analysis with five indices rather than four.
50560. Tom Dayton at 08:51 AM on 24 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       No, Jack, you don't get a pass just because your "time is limited". You have plenty of time to type pompous assertions, so certainly you have time to at least click the links we provide you before you type more. There is no "if" about it--source code and documentation of GCMs easily are available, if you just click. We have given you links to only a subset of them. Another one is the Monash Simple Climate Model (based on GREB)--so simple that you should easily be able to confirm the quality of its code, the sensibility of the factors it includes, and the deviation from horizontal of its projections. (Hat tip to the Rabbett.) You responded "The range of uncertainty for those models is so large it doesn't really tell us anything. A result so broad that it would be difficult for it to ever be wrong is also not very right." Your statement is obviously wrong, unless you can't draw a horizontal band with your imagination, in the graphs we provided you. Well, maybe you can't, so this first figure's authors have done it for you. It would be really easy for the models to be wrong, but they aren't. Being wrong means the globe will not warm, so there's no need to do anything. In contrast, being right even at the low edge of the predictive envelope most definitely means needing to act substantively right now. When you do bother to click the links we provide, you need to then read carefully. Your interpretation of RealClimate's FAQs on GCMs as "primarily tuned by trial&error, not scientific principles [please note the word 'tuned']" is a result of your skimming when you lack the most basic prior knowledge. If you had bothered to watch the short Climate Modeling 101 videos I pointed you to, you might have had the knowledge to understand that those tunings (of which there are relatively few) are done not to make global temperature evolution match the observed evolution, but instead to make a few very narrow, specific, component, physical processes in the model match the observations about those very narrow, specific, component, physical processes. As KR responded to you, these are physical models, not statistical ones.
50561. villabolo at 06:59 AM on 24 December 2012
       Arctic continues to break records in 2012: Becoming warmer, greener region with record losses of summer sea ice and late spring snow
       Any predictions as to when the Arctic will be ice free in the summer? I predict 2020 for first ice free season.
50562. dana1981 at 05:20 AM on 24 December 2012
       Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
       Honestly if you're going to argue that changes in solar activity from over 60 years ago could be causing global warming today, you might as well argue that subterranean unicorn farts are causing global warming too. Just because we can't conclusively disprove something doesn't mean that it's remotely physically plausible.
50563. dana1981 at 05:12 AM on 24 December 2012
       Add Frame and Stone to the List of Papers Validating IPCC Warming Projections
       Note that I've got a comprehensive blog post and rebuttal to the myth that the IPCC overestimated global warming (the argument based on Figure 1.4) in the works. It should be published next week. And it's pretty darn good, if I do say so myself.
50564. KR at 02:40 AM on 24 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       JackO'Fall - "...re-running a 2004 scenario (for example), yet adding in 'known future' levels of things like CO2 and volcano emissions. If that exists, please let me know." See Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011, Rahmstorf et al 2011, which does exactly that. "...they (models) are primarily tuned by trial&error, not scientific principles [please note the word 'tuned']" I would have to call this an incorrect assertion based upon not knowing how these models are developed - ie, from the physics. "What I was referring to is a lack of source-code with documentation for the GCMs. If it exists, I am clearly wrong and fully retract that statement." See the RealClimate links for GCM model codes, also radiative transfer models and others. Again, these are widely available, and have always been. "The range of uncertainty for those models is so large it doesn't really tell us anything. A result so broad that it would be difficult for it to ever be wrong is also not very right." On the contrary - predictions of climate change due to anthropogenic influence data back 120 years, and have been demonstrated to be correct over and over again. --- To be blunt, Jack, you have made a long list of assertions that are (a) wholly incorrect, and (b) you would have found to be so with only a little effort in looking things up. I strongly suggest you do a bit more reading.
50565. JoeT at 02:37 AM on 24 December 2012
       Add Frame and Stone to the List of Papers Validating IPCC Warming Projections
       Mighty Drunken @22 & @24 You raised the same point that I did, which is that it is difficult to claim that Figure 1.4 of the draft shws the data right in the middle of the scenarios. If you're still following this thread Tamino has an excellent discussion of this exact point and shows that the problem is that the draft aligns all the projections at 1990, a warm year, rather than to a trend line to the data. In brief, this resolves the discrepancy between the draft report and what Dana is showing above.
50566. Daniel Bailey at 02:27 AM on 24 December 2012
       Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
       Sphaerica, the link below seems to work for me: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=7634&Method=Full That being said, when someone uses the phrase

       "...my imaginary denialist is now asking me..."

       it raises the hackles on the back of my neck.
50567. Bob Lacatena at 02:11 AM on 24 December 2012
       Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
       curiousd, Please provide a working link. I'm also confused by the wording of your "argument." "Has allowed?" It passed peer review, that's all. That doesn't make it true, that just makes it good enough for everyone to decide if it's true. What are the published comments on the paper? Have subsequent papers been published that rebut it? Is it being properly interpreted in this context? I personally have never seen such an argument, and even if it is, I don't necessarily see it as incompatible with F&R 2012. My next step would be to see if, when adding stratospheric water vapor to the F&R methodology, how much and in what direction it contributes.
50568. curiousd at 01:46 AM on 24 December 2012
       Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
       I find myself these days asking the question...."What would be hard questions to handle if a denialist queries part of my presentation on AGW?" Since the Foster - Rahmsdorff multiple regression analysis is one of the important parts of any AGW presentation,IMO, my imaginary denialist is now asking me: "The establishment, peer reviewed literature has allowed publication of an article to the effect that lessening of stratospheric water vapor has temporarily slowed global warming ...see http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=7634&Method=Full.... SKS had no particular quarrel with this article, I recall; only in its over interpretation by others. Then why is this effect of lessening stratospheric water vapor (apparently) completely removed by the method of Foster and Rahmsdorff?
50569. michael sweet at 22:38 PM on 23 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Jack, Anyone who has looked at this issue at all should know that GISTEMP has two web links. One gives their code and documentation for determining the anomaly of surface temperatures and the other gives code and documentation for their climate model. That includes all the source code and documentation that you can desire,including old models. You need to do your homework before you criticize hard-working scientists efforts. Look at GISS again and find the climate model link.
       Moderator Response: [TD] Typo: "GISTEMP has two web links" should be plain "GISS."
50570. JackO'Fall at 14:05 PM on 23 December 2012
       Models are unreliable
       @ Tom Dayton: I never said a modeler doesn't want to improve their model, just that I would like them to continuously improve and that the need to include new feedbacks is not bad. I threw that in there in hopes of showing that I'm not rooting against the models. Apparently I missed getting that across. My apologies. My time is limited, so I know I miss a lot of data out there (and don't have a chance to reply to a lot of what gets written back at me). However, I looked at the GISTEMP link, it doesn't look like a climate model, but an attempt to recreate the corrective actions that go into adjusting the raw data from the temperature stations and producing the GISS results. Still, cool that they are doing it. What I was referring to is a lack of source-code with documentation for the GCMs. If it exists, I am clearly wrong and fully retract that statement. I also read the RealClimate FAQs on GCMs, as suggested. It seemed to agree with many of my basic contentions. (they have estimations that they know are off, they don't include everything we know, they are prone to drifting-though less than in the past, they are primarily tuned by trial&error, not scientific principles [please note the word 'tuned']) @KR: While both of Hansen's graphs seem to do a good job estimating future temperatures, that's not what I was referring to. I believed Tom Curtis was proposing re-running a 2004 scenario (for example), yet adding in known 'future' levels of things like CO2 and volcano emissions. If that exists, please let me know. Of course, the other link was inconclusive, so be polite. The range of uncertainty for those models is so large it doesn't really tell us anything. A result so broad that it would be difficult for it to ever be wrong is also not very right. @scaddenp: At the very least, if the ENSO correction is more natural variability than previously understood, that is very helpful. In terms of modeling that, it will probably increase the uncertainty range, but would allow for a better run at what I believe Tom Curtis proposed. That may be more helpful in time scales of less than 30 years (I'm not sure anyone will wait 30 years to see if the current models accurately predicted the future). My apologies for off-topic discussion. I should not have made my initial off-the-cuff economic response, and certainly should not have replied more extensively.
50571. Doug Hutcheson at 11:10 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       KR @ a2, thank you for posting the graph. The caption makes sense now.
50572. Doug Hutcheson at 11:07 AM on 23 December 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #50
       Bernard J. @ 13, why didn't I think of that? Doh! Thank you. vrooomie @ 14, on my tight budget, that is a luxury I will have to forego. With any luck, the State Library service will be able to track down a copy for me.
50573. Bernard J. at 10:46 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       John Russell astutely commented:

       "...optimists... [are] ...generally healthier and happier than pessimists..." They are until overtaken by events they didn't foresee due to their irrational optimism. It's interesting that there are so many optimists around -- I'd have thought that, thanks to evolution, we'd have lost them all to lions hiding behind rocks.

       This reminds me of Douglas Adams' observation on the phenomenon, which most people blithely assume is simply a comic instrument:

       The Book: It is important to note that suddenly, and against all probability, a sperm whale had been called into existence, several miles above the surface of an alien planet. And since this is not a naturally tenable position for a whale, this innocent creature had very little time to come to terms with its identity. This is what it thought, as it fell: The Whale: Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail! Yeah! Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello, Ground! [Cuts to a distant view as the whale hits the ground and spews up a large mushroom cloud of snow] The Book: Curiously, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias, as it fell, was, "Oh no, not again!" Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly *why* the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now.

50574. Bob Loblaw at 09:46 AM on 23 December 2012
       Solar Cycle Model fails to predict the recent warming
       Philip: comments in journals are actually a fairly rare thing, and a lot of journals don't really like them much. Some may not allow them at all. It can also be a lot of work to prepare one, and you don't get much credit as an academic for them. To advance a career, time is better spent on full articles - but for that to be a "response" to a bad paper, it has to have enough new stuff in it to merit publication on its own (but then can also be submitted to any journal you want, not just the one with the bad paper). For a bad paper in an odd journal, the editors may not want to publicly acknowledge that they let utter crap through their peer review process - which may mean that the subject was one they didn't really know much about to begin with (and therefore can't judge the merits of the comment, either). You'll see frequent mention here at SkS by dana1981 to the paper discussed in the post Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues. That was published as a comment, but the original idea was (I think) to submit it as a stand-alone paper, and the journal/editor decided it was more suited as a comment. Dana may wish to weigh in on the difficulties of the process.
50575. Paul D at 08:57 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       I really don't understand the likes of Ridley. This year in the UK we started with drought, now we have to much water everywhere and we are no where near seeing the worst of climate change! There are businesses really suffering as well as home owners. The risk is clear in the UK, do nothing and the costs are going to be astonishing.
50576. Treesong2 at 08:29 AM on 23 December 2012
       Solar Cycle Model fails to predict the recent warming
       HPJ@12, I hope it's not amiss to ask a question about scientific publication protocol rather than climate: Why not send a comment to the journal? Granted, the information is now out in the world, but it's not right in front of the people who saw the original article. And it doesn't seem to me that it would need to be anything elaborate, just 'Adding solar cycle numbers to the dots in their figure X (see figure Y) shows that their model fails increasingly badly after solar cycle 20.' And a reference to this posting. At worst you waste a couple of hours. At best you can point out to deniers and journalists that SSH have been shot down where they were originally published. Granted, I may completely underestimate the difficulties, but that's why I'm asking.
50577. scaddenp at 06:45 AM on 23 December 2012
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       Markx, if you are more interested in the politics than the science, then perhaps you can make a positive contribution on this thread GHG reductions - a challenge for the right? One of the worrying sources of "skepticism" is a knee-jerk antipathy from people who find proposed solutions at odds with their political beliefs. This leads to hunting down disinformation to feed their skepticism instead of an honest search for the truth.
50578. JoeT at 06:20 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       Victor@18 Actually, I read your blog post several days ago. Like you, I had seen the post on WUWT, then I did a google search on NVAP-M which led me to your blog. After I read your post, I went back and read the Colorado State paper. Nice catch on how WUWT (as well as Matt Ridley) distorted the conclusion in the report by quoting a single sentence out of context.
50579. markx at 04:51 AM on 23 December 2012
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       (-Moderation complaints snipped-)
       Moderator Response: [Sph] Posting on SkS is a privilege, not a right. This site exists first and foremost to present the science and to debunk misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the science. Discussion of the science is welcomed. This site does not exist to allow fake skeptics to create the impression of a false debate, fair or unfair.
       
       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
       
       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators intentionally submit offensive comments. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
       
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.
       
       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
50580. Albatross at 04:41 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       BBD and Neven, Fortunately, someone has invested the time to look closer at the curios claims made by Ridley and Lewis. It seems the more "sophisticated" the fake skeptics are, the more skilled they are at deluding themselves and anyone who will listen or take them seriously. A post by ThingsBreak titled "Matt Ridley and the Wall Street Journal misrepresent paper cited in Ridley column" exposes just how "creative" and sly Lewis et al. had to be to force their desired narrative. "Ignoring the two main findings of a paper for values that you’re either estimating from a curve or are creating yourself based on data not used by the paper will be seen by at least some people to be misleading. Claiming that ECS cannot be estimated by paleo data is absurd, especially when so many are aware of efforts like the PALAEOSENS project and various paleoclimatic intercomparison groups." So yet another alleged "nail in the coffin of AGW" is, pardon the pun, vapourized. Water vapour is not our friend in this situation, I'm inclined to call it "Darth Vapour" ;) Physics cares not one iota for the shenanigans of fake skeptics....
50581. VictorVenema at 04:36 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       JoeT: "Victor @6 Nice write-up on your blog. Perhaps, with your permission, skepticalscience might want to reprint it." Joe, thank you for your nice words. Everyone has permission to reprint any post. I must honestly say, that I do not see it as a special post. Anyone with access to the literature could have written it. We need more open access publishing to make the life of the climate ostriches more difficult. I am just amazed as the boldness of the climate ostriches and hope that the post helps to speed the demise of this PR circus a little and the word "climate sceptic" will again be reserved for sceptical people. The discussion on the best response to climate change is difficult enough without misinformation.
50582. Neven at 04:31 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       If we bank (pardon the pun) on Ridley's optimism and it turns out to be unfounded, we will be on a path headed towards catastrophe. But I'm sure Ridley will be fine. He was born into the 1%. My sense is that the more sophisticated contrarians are going to run with this. Indeed.
50583. BBD at 04:01 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       @ 15 Albatross I'm sorry even to have to suggest this extra workload, especially the *weekend before Christmas*. Unfortunately, it looks as though it needs to be done, and to halt the nonsense, done properly. If it makes anyone feel any better, just consider how much time and effort went into constructing NL's analysis. So very, very carefully.
50584. markx at 03:52 AM on 23 December 2012
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       Philippe Chantreau at 20:23 PM on 22 December, 2012 said: "...In Shanghai, .... outside elevators. One looses sight of the ground in smog when reaching the 15th floor on a good day. ..." I had the opportunity to take a job in Shanghai last year, and that was one of the reasons I chose not to. It is interesting to note that the Chinese are addressing that problem to some extent by opening coal fired power stations at the rate of about one every two weeks. While that may sound counter intuitive, those power sources are replacing millions of old inefficient coal burning boilers which are largely charged with often wet, usually dirty coal. I think you will see in the future that they continue to deal with these issues in their own way. In some systems, direct government action and policy may play a predominant role.
50585. markx at 03:40 AM on 23 December 2012
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       (-snip-). Philippe Chantreau at 20:23 PM on 22 December, 2012 said: 1. A major downfall of capitalism, which has nothing to do with the basic concept or its intent, is the "immunity" given to some corporations and certain individuals, enabling them to consolidate their power and exploit their positions to entrench and enrich themselves. 2. …. there never was communism in the Soviet Union, or China, or Korea. These places have experienced totalitarian socialism, as defined by state ownership of the means of production. 3. ….. socialist countries have a notoriously poor record of environmental performance, far worse than capitalistic countries. 4. ….. strong environmental regulations, and consistent enforcement thereof, are theoretically possible only where there is adequate separation of powers….. Philippe, I absolutely agree with your points 1 to 5 above, but am not sure if I can make any valid comparison of the EPA to the market crash. DSL at 14:46 PM on 22 December, 2012 makes very good points, “…… does this year's corn production mean that global warming is benefiting corn production? Or are there other, more significant factors at work?....” Which can be applied directly to show the meaninglessness of Killians’s statement: Killian at 18:44 PM on 31 July, 2011 said: ".... crop reductions of 3% are already being realized..." My point still remains that government action is not necessarily always in everyone’s (or anyone’s) best interests, subject as they are to lobbyists of all types and from all directions. (-snip-).
       Moderator Response: [DB] Allegations of impropriety snipped. You have been warned about making such before, with the previous such comment warranting you being given a 2nd Warning. This is now your Final Warning; further such violations of this site's Comments Policy will result in a revocation of commenting privileges.
50586. Albatross at 02:57 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       BBD @11, Scientists at SkS are looking into the blog article written by financier Lewis. However, like grading/evaluating any bad paper, it takes time to separate the (little) wheat from the copious chaff.
50587. Albatross at 02:54 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       This nonsense is so consistent with fake skeptics and those in denial being completely incapable of advancing a internally consistent and coherent hypothesis. The contradiction here is very clear. In the same week fake skeptic and denier web sites have touted two hypotheses that are completely at odds with one another. First, they rehash the long debunked Galactic Cosmic Ray hypothesis. Second, the trot out another favourite that climate sensitivity is low. Well, if GCRs play a big a role as fake skeptics and those in denial claim, then the climate system has to be sensitive to very small forcings, in other words climate sensitivity must be very high, not low.
50588. Jim Eager at 02:50 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       Re the trend in specific humidity, plots of Dai (2006), HadCRUH (2008) and Barry & Kent (2009) can be found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/humidity HadCRUH data download link here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcruh/ Tamino looked at this data here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/urban-wet-island/
       Moderator Response: [TD] Linked the URLs.
50589. vrooomie at 02:25 AM on 23 December 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #50
       Doug H, I *highly* recommend you buy acopy of Friel's book: it is dense, it is excruciatingly detailed, and I used it as a reference book, a lot.
50590. KR at 02:18 AM on 23 December 2012
       More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica
       markx - Very interesting. Of course, as has been said in many contexts, "size matters". Drop in relative sea level at the grounding edge of an ice sheet is an influence on ice sheet loss rates (-). So are the warming water at the grounding level (+), changes in precipitation due to atmospheric water vapor levels (-?), lubrication of the ice sheet from percolated melt water (+), and acceleration of sheet movement due to reduction of the grounding line dam effect (+), among others. Unfortunately, given the observations on ice sheet thicknesses, the sum of these influences is still (as far as I can see) leading to ice sheet loss in Greenland and parts of Antarctica.
50591. KR at 02:07 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       Doug H - That figure has apparently been reformatted/redone to a more horizontal orientation than the original (not certain of its provenance), and I suspect the vertical bar has been lost due to resizing (dropping a few pixels is always risky with thin lines). The full illustration of interest from Knutti and Hegerl 2008 is Figure 3a:
50592. BBD at 02:02 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       I urge you to give Lewis' estimate of climate sensitivity a careful review. Thoughtful commentary has already begun, which suggests that there is merit in subjecting his assumptions to very close scrutiny. If it should turn out that there are assumptions in NL's work which bias its conclusions, then a reference page here would be extremely valuable. My sense is that the more sophisticated contrarians are going to run with this.
50593. markx at 01:03 AM on 23 December 2012
       More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica
       Some degree of 'self regulation' occurs due to gravitational effects - new research by Gomez (student of Jerry Mitrovica)

       Evolution of a coupled marine ice sheet–sea level model Natalya Gomez,1 David Pollard,2 Jerry X. Mitrovica,1 Peter Huybers,1 and Peter U. Clark3 Received 16 June 2011; revised 18 November 2011; accepted 6 December 2011; published 14 February 2012. [1] We investigate the stability of marine ice sheets by coupling a gravitationally self-consistent sea level model valid for a self-gravitating, viscoelastically deforming Earth to a 1-D marine ice sheet-shelf model. The evolution of the coupled model is explored for a suite of simulations in which we vary the bed slope and the forcing that initiates retreat. We find that the sea level fall at the grounding line associated with a retreating ice sheet acts to slow the retreat; in simulations with shallow reversed bed slopes and/or small external forcing, the drop in sea level can be sufficient to halt the retreat. The rate of sea level change at the grounding line has an elastic component due to ongoing changes in ice sheet geometry, and a viscous component due to past ice and ocean load changes. [......]

50594. John Russell at 00:43 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       Several points to make here. I've noticed that most of the 'more sophisticated' sceptics have dropped denial of warming and its anthropogenic origins and now base all their arguments around the climate sensitivity issue. So 'it wont be bad' seems to be the 'meme du jour'. Ridley fits the mould perfectly. To John Brookes: "...optimists... [are] ...generally healthier and happier than pessimists..." They are until overtaken by events they didn't foresee due to their irrational optimism. It's interesting that there are so many optimists around -- I'd have thought that, thanks to evolution, we'd have lost them all to lions hiding behind rocks. The Ridleys of this world (especially given his financial background) tend to fall optimistically into the 'short-termist' camp. It's also a more general failing. I was struck by this graph the other day showing longer timescales than we usually see. If the concern is future generations, rather than our own self-satisfaction, the cherry-pickers need to think a little more deeply.
50595. JoeT at 00:40 AM on 23 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       Victor @6 Nice write-up on your blog. Perhaps, with your permission, skepticalscience might want to reprint it.
50596. David Lee at 23:45 PM on 22 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       It was Sir John Sulston (biologist, Nobel Prize winner) who called Ridley an "irrational optimist". http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017mrbd
50597. Bernard J. at 23:42 PM on 22 December 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #50
       Doug at #10. I feel your pain, as I frequently have exactly the same problem. One way around it that usually works is to copy a word string from the search return for which you want the original thread. Paste the string into G00gle, and include in the search field "site:http://www.skepticalscience.com/". Where SkS's engine fails to deliver the URL, G00gle usually succeeds.
50598. Chuck123 at 20:34 PM on 22 December 2012
       Climate's changed before
       I came across this article http://www.nature.com/news/polar-research-trouble-bares-its-claws-1.12015 about how crabs, which had been excluded from the Antarctic continental shelf for 30 million years because of the cold, are invading due to the incursion of warmer ocean waters. They are preying on an ecology that had evolved free from hard-shell-crushing predators. This is evidence that the current climate change is far beyond normal natural variation
50599. Philippe Chantreau at 20:23 PM on 22 December 2012
       The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
       Re Markx: A major downfall of capitalism, which has nothing to do with the basic concept or its intent, is the "immunity" given to some corporations and certain individuals, enabling them to consolidate their power and exploit their positions to entrench and enrich themselves (2008 crash anyone?). See? I can do rethoric too. The reference to the EPA would be laughable if it wasn't so grotesque. Tell me Markx, how much did the 2008 market crash cost to the world economies? Sorry, that was an unfair question, because these costs are still unfolding as we speak. If everything was really accounted for, we'd be in the multiple trillion range. All because of a way too small number of individuals controlling way too large an amount of wealth and having no clue about risk management, or plain economic reality. And of course nobody to effectively watch them. When did the EPA ever wreak such havoc on the entire world? I'll add that there never was communism in the Soviet Union, or China, or Korea. These places have experienced totalitarian socialism, as defined by state ownership of the means of production. The only instances of socio-economic systems truly akin to theoretical communism are known among primitive societies, and are aptly called primitive communism. It is to be noted that socialist countries have a notoriously poor record of environmental performance, far worse than capitalistic countries, except perhaps for Cuba (I'm not even sure). In these countries, environmental regulations are virtually non existent, and what few there are can't be enforced. In fact, strong environmental regulations, and consistent enforcement thereof, are theoretically possible only where there is adequate separation of powers. And that is exactly what is observed in geopolitical reality. Furthermore, environmental regulations are actually a late feature of fully mature states with a long, functioning history of separated powers. In Shangai, luxury high rise hotels have sprouted, where they fancy outside elevators. One looses sight of the ground in smog when reaching the 15th floor on a good day. In more mature countries, there are laws that aim at preventing that sort of thing. Not sure about you but I know where I'd rahter live.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Note to all participants:

       Please restrict the discussion on communism by tying your comments back to the OP with an establishment of relevance. Comments solely focusing on communism will be subject to moderation under the "No Politics" portion of the Comments Policy.

50600. John Brookes at 20:22 PM on 22 December 2012
       Matt Ridley Risk Management Failure Deja Vu
       Its funny, but when it came to running a bank, Ridley was an optimist. Everything would be fine. I once heard a lecture on learned optimism. Basically it said that optimists were generally healthier and happier than pessimists, and that we should all learn how to be optimists. However, it did offer a caution. If you are in an aeroplane, and are heading for a thunderstorm, you should very much hope that your pilot is a pessimist. It appears that Ridley has learned little from the failure of his optimism at Northern Rock, and is now applying it to climate science. On a slightly related note, it has been found that the presence or absence of optimism in people diagnosed with cancer does not affect their outcomes. However the presence of hope does lead to more positive outcomes. One hopes it will work for climate change as well.

Prev  1004  1005  1006  1007  1008  1009  1010  1011  1012  1013  1014  1015  1016  1017  1018  1019  Next