Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 Next
Comments 52201 to 52250:
-
danielbacon at 22:55 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
There is must to-do about the 97-98% but who are the 2%’ers really. If they are publishing in field, what are they saying (links to their abstracts). I realize the surveys will not list the participants, but I really cannot come up with 2% If we exclude the non-scientists nuts who is left? I know of: John Christy Roy Spencer I would exclude “Patrick Michaels” he only has one published work in Nature or am I wrong not to include him. Anyway it would be nice to have a post of these 2%’ers and their works. -
DSL at 22:44 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Yes, Tom. The longer it takes you to answer questions about the science, the more I'm inclined to think you're simply a tool in others' hands. You were once a teacher, weren't you? You now appear as a professional rhetorician, which is as kind as I can put it without violating the comments policy (which I've probably already done). -
YubeDude at 22:35 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Alexandre@10 First let me state that my comments are not personal or intended to insult your position. I disagree with your suggest and mostly because your billboard idea has an emotional tone that plays into the hands of groups like Heartland and people like Mr Harris. They want to make this an emotional issue because they can not argue the facts or the empirical metrics that have been developed. The want to suggest that life styles will be compromised, wallets lightened and that your children will end up walking in the bitter cold searching for a job. We need to concentrate on the facts, the details, the studies, the peer reviewed publications first and foremost. Once the issue is established as a reality that threatens our way of life and life itself, then and only then, will we have any traction with the lay-public; and once they see the reality, the future will be abundantly clear. We won't have to put up billboards as everyone will already know what is in store for us. Skeptics are the ones who came up with the acronym CAGW because they wanted to paint the picture that the issue is one of scare mongering. We don't need to help them out. I feel your passion and I am equally frustrated over the resistance toward the obvious but the public needs to be handled carefully or we will lose them to their own fears; fears which are being actively manipulated by an army of "deskepticons" hell bent on obfuscation and re-working the issue away from science and moving it to an issue of politically motivated social engineering. -
Alexandre at 22:07 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
I'm for a campaign publicly endorsed by the most respected scientific institutions in the field, in each country. It should convey simple and direct messages - as simple as tobacco hazard warnings we have in some countries. Billboards or full-page ads saying thins like “We thought Arctic sea ice would be as low only in fifty years. It’s going now.” “Remember last summer’s heatwave? That will be our mild summer in 2060. Protect our children’s future. Stop global warming.” “40% of our freshwater comes from that glacier. Protect our water. Stop warming.” All this, I repeat, endorsed by institutions like NOAA, NASA, and the like. The general public is NOT currently aware of the position of these institutions, and that helps only the denier campaign. Elaborate public statements buried in the middle of a very technical website (such as NOAA’s) have a very limited effect when it comes to informing the general public. -
Kevin C at 22:06 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Dr Harris: Welcome back. I note that you still haven't provided a response to the scientific questions concerning your previous lecture course, as identified in this article, instead choosing to try and deflect the discussion to other topics. I'm still interested in your answers to those questions. My particular area of interest is the relationship between forcing and temperature, and so your statement that "there isn’t a good correlation between temperatures and CO2 over the record." is particularly peculiar: Firstly it ignores the fact that CO2 is not and has never been claimed to be the only forcing, and secondly the relationship between forcing and temperature once taking into account lags is very strong indeed. I will be happy to take you through my analysis if you are interested. I suggest however that the other thread would be a more appropriate venue. No doubt other contributors will want to understand your curious statements on other issues. -
Philippe Chantreau at 21:50 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
And Tom Harris gives us a perfect example of another topic, namely the coping strategy number one of those who can't face reality: deny it. And be sincere about it. -
John Brookes at 21:23 PM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
US summer heat wave. Record low arctic sea ice minimum. NY hit by two hurricanes in one year. But its just bad luck... -
Brian Purdue at 20:09 PM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Bernard J @17 I don’t know if you are aware or not but the real estate developer pictured in the SMH article you linked to is now the Lord Mayor of Newcastle – developer becomes politician. Now that’s no way to solve the problem! -
YubeDude at 19:54 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
TomHarris@6 "consensus argument is nonsense" Vague and unsupported, but congrats for putting it out there. Maybe next time you can substantiate such a bold and meaningless claim. "poll you cite was so biased as to not be a meaningful indicator of American public opinion on global warming" What makes the poll biased, and not to put to fine a point on things, who gives a "rats ass" what the public OPINION is on a matter of science? When it comes to opinion I thought it was the job of manipulative "deskepticons", like those who run sham think tanks, to create the public opinion. "I'll have a review...It is a pretty ridiculous survey." Maybe it would be best to wait for some objective analysis before posting your conclusion on the surveys merit. -
TomHarrisICSC at 19:04 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Thanks for mentioning the International Climate Science Coalition in your article. Yes, the consensus argument is nonsense. Also, the Yale/George Mason poll you cite was so biased as to not be a meaningful indicator of American public opinion on global warming, etc. See my article on this here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/u.s.-main-stream-media-duped-on-global-warming-polls I'll have a review of the Anderegg et al. (2010) 97% paper shortly. It is a pretty ridiculous survey. Sincerely, Tom Harris ICSC - Ottawa -
Arctic Haze at 18:02 PM on 30 October 2012Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
Here is another one: https://twitter.com/bakyelli/status/263065660890951681/photo/1 And I will remind here that Hansen was talking not only about ocean surge but also hight winds. He apparently meant a tropical hurricane in NY. "“The West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds". His prediction came true after 24, not 40 years! -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:03 PM on 30 October 2012Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
Here is another photo - chest deep on the West Side Highway - during the Sandy superstorm. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 16:47 PM on 30 October 2012Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
This isn't permanent (yet), but likely to happen more often this century. Click here to see a photo of New York's West Side Highway under water. Another report from Wall St Journal Metropolis blog here: "Water is “flowing at great speed” from the West Side Highway into the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, he said, but it’s too early to say how much had entered the subway system." -
Doug Bostrom at 16:34 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Sensenbrenner's remarks about "scientists and their supporters" make me wonder if he'd need to be persuaded to use a ladder to climb down from a roof rather than simply jump. On the one hand "physicists and their supporters" say Sensenbrenner would risk being hurt by jumping 20' to the ground but on the other hand who can really say? It's controversial; after all, gravitation is only a theory and doubtless some crazy people can be found who think our confinement to Earth is just mass hysteria. Why not leap off the roof and let events prove the truth? Not likely Sensenbrenner would jump from a roof but he's prepared to impose bigger risks on himself and many others. Odd. -
Bernard J. at 16:02 PM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Indeed Uncle Pete. And not to forget the real estate industry's liaisons with the likes of David Archibald, Ian Plimer, and Bob Carter. -
mikeh1 at 15:36 PM on 30 October 2012Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
Photo of flooding along the Westside Highway during Hurricane Sandy. -
Uncle Pete at 14:27 PM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
@Bernard J . Never underestimate the power of the real estate industry and their close liaisons with politicians. -
Uncle Pete at 14:18 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Thanks for another great post. I sometimes wonder how these people can sleep with a clear conscience. Then again, the laws of physics even apply to the universe these thinktankers inhabit. I suppose Sandy is a just an appetiser of what is in store for the biosphere. -
DSL at 14:16 PM on 30 October 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Yes, Doug: I've seen your "new science" before. Isn't that Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen I hear calling your name? -
Bernard J. at 12:51 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
We Need to Communicate the Consensus to the Public
I've said it before and I'll say it again: professional scientific organisations need to be deliberately and conspicuously standing squarely in the limelight to strenuously inform the public that the issue of human-caused planetary warming is Real, that it is Serious, and that it is Now. If politics won't stay out of science, then science needs to wedge a foot in the door of the political strategy rooms and straighten the record. And kudos for the Skeptical Science team, for their invaluable and world-leading efforts in this regard. -
adelady at 12:50 PM on 30 October 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Postma's new paper. There's nothing new about it. Some of it is downright tedious. 3.4. The back-radiation/glass greenhouse justification for the GHE Please see Appendix H for a sample list of quotation references adhering to the backradiation mechanism of the GHE. All the references and quotations therein conform to the “backradiation model” of the GHE, which is based on a comparison with actual greenhouses made of glass. The problem is that this well-known comparison is incorrect. Go and have a look if you're interested, but don't expect anything new, or even interesting. -
Bernard J. at 12:20 PM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
You go to a gas station to fill up on hydrocarbon fuel which powers an engine designed to eficiently burn the hydrocarbon fuel with pure oxygen. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce heat and H2O. The carbon combines with oxygen to produce heat and CO2. The temperatures attainable are higher than using air, which contains 79% Nitrogen. The efficiency of a heat to work engine is proportional to the difference between the highest and lowest cycle temperatures (Carnot). The products are work, CO2 and water. The CO2 can be temporarily captued in a recyclable media, which is recycled at the gas station while you fill up. Zero emissions, much better gas mileage, higher efficiency, unbelievable power.
I'd like to see the energy budget that accounts for: 1) the costs of purifying, storing and delivering the O2, 2) the costs of collecting, storing and safely and permanently disposing of the CO2 and, as others have pointed out, 3) for the vehicle retooling that would be necessary. How do these thermodynamically-unavoidable costs compare with the increased combustion efficiently returned from using pure oxygen? -
YubeDude at 11:52 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Another solid effort addressing the communication front in this battle over reality. A spin that is often used and one that serves as an anchor for the "deskepticons" to turn the tables on consensus is this "97% consensus" statement. I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that we drive this number home and as an alternitive suggest a more detailed set of numbers while completely avoiding this simple percentage...allow me to explain. The issue of consensus is done a disservice by any mention of this oft repeated percentage as its use quickly opens the door to the statistically insignificant sample size that was used to gives us the "97%"; discount the sample size and you discount the percentage in the finding, discount the finding and you discount the consensus. Discount the consensus and you call into to question a variety of empirical metrics with any outlier that offers a contrarian conclusion. The baby steps of denial. Rather than make any mention of the 97% I suggest the following mash up of Dana's statement: -A 2004 survey of 928 peer-reviewed climate science abstracts, found 75% either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the consensus view, while finding no papers rejecting and later in 2009, a review of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data showed a 97–98% of the researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of human induced climate change.- The "97% consensus" statement is so overloaded with caveat that it really only serves as a softball to be driven deep into the denial-a-sphere by "deskepticons" and his Lordship. Break away from the simple reference and add the structure of significance that the details present. "the climate denial movement knows they don't need to win the scientific argument as long as they can convince the public that there is an ongoing scientific debate regarding climate change." It's never about the truth, just the perception. I would't doubt it if someone told me there is a plaque hanging in the Heartland conference room that says: "It's their perception stupid" -
stonepig at 11:08 AM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
DMCarey, I think you misinterpreted YubeDude. I thought he made a point that we get frustrated with the icers. Granted, he might be a Republican but does that really matter here? I have heard reports that people right in the path are not even doing the basics to survive a power outage for a few days. Lack of personal responsibility in a modest planning mode could save a lot of lives, but most people really do expect the government services to 'save' them. -
kar at 10:56 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Strategy #1: Deny the Consensus
Did you mean denyers - or delayers? :-) However, the formula for climate delayers is a simple one Great article by the way... -
scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
"Exactly". Something that takes a complete redesign of the car is not a stopgap measure - it would take 25years to replace vehicle fleet with new technology. We would be better off doing that transition to electric rather than a pure O2 fossil fuel burner. For a pure O2 burner to get more kms per litre of fossil fuel, it needs to be a lot better at converting chemical energy to kinetic and as a result must exhaust much less heat. At first glance, it is hard to see how pure O2 makes that difference. You have either carry heavy O2 tank on car as well as fuel, or carry an O2-stripping apparatus in the car as well. Pure o2 should result in more power so perhaps a smaller engine but an internal combustion engine is going to have major fun with the temperature. I'm skeptical - electric seems better to me - but I'm open to be convinced by actual designs. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:45 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
I seem to remember a (apocryphal?) story about a car or truck accidentally being run through a wall into an area at Cape Kennedy where the air was enriched w/oxygen for some reason. If I remember rightly the main the outcome was lots of flame in the wrong places; impromptu external combustion engine, so to speak. Can't find the story on Google so presumably it does not even rise to the level of Internet rubbish... -
sincam at 07:50 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
scaddenp, EXACTLY!! -
scaddenp at 07:42 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
sincam - i think if pushed pure oxygen in the engine, you would loose the engine very quickly and very messily. You would need a complete redesign to use pure O2. -
scaddenp at 07:22 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
Also Bill. If you are only looking at surface temperature stations, then note that models (in which the heating is continuous) can show quite long periods of flat surface temperatures. For a rather infamous example look at Keenlyside et al 2008 - fig 3 for instance. -
scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
See here for article on measuring the earth's energy imbalance. It has links to many of the relevant papers. -
funglestrumpet at 06:22 AM on 30 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #43
On a lighter note, imagine debating climate change with the woman in this video -
DMCarey at 05:21 AM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
YubeDude, that really is the kind of reply that makes you want to scream. I've seen several attempts at dismissing or manipulating Sandy, but that is the first where the cooling spin was attempted to be put on it. Earlier today I had the... luxury... of listening through a taxing explination that the fuss over Sandy has been hyped up by the "leftist media" in order to swing voters for Obama. The really frustrating part is I'm in Canada, and still in the path of the hurricane at that. To see the potential damage the US might undergo as a result of Sandy brushed off as a political ploy is just infuriating -
sincam at 04:46 AM on 30 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
vroomie. You go to a gas station to fill up on hydrocarbon fuel which powers an engine designed to eficiently burn the hydrocarbon fuel with pure oxygen. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce heat and H2O. The carbon combines with oxygen to produce heat and CO2. The temperatures attainable are higher than using air, which contains 79% Nitrogen. The efficiency of a heat to work engine is proportional to the difference between the highest and lowest cycle temperatures (Carnot). The products are work, CO2 and water. The CO2 can be temporarily captued in a recyclable media, which is recycled at the gas station while you fill up. Zero emissions, much better gas mileage, higher efficiency, unbelievable power. -
funglestrumpet at 03:30 AM on 30 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #43
"When and how did you first become concerned about manmade climate change and its consequences?" I have yet to become concerned about manmade climate change. What I am concerned about, and extremely so, is climate change regardless of what the heck is causing it. I think anyone who watched the recent video 'Climate of Doubt' can't help but to have noticed how much the debate got hung up on the 'manmade' bit and just how effective it is in deflecting the debate from reducing the fossil fuel industry's profits – sorry – deflecting action to combat climate change. A scenario that I use (repeatedly) concerns the actions of the captain of a liner with an iceberg dead ahead. It would be an act of supreme folly to refuse to change course and reduce speed simply because the damn thing was not manmade. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and therefore, even if it were the sun or some other natural phenomenon that is causing the warming, it would still make sense to cut CO2 production in order to offset the heating effect, whatever its cause, if only by a little. Indeed, if climate change were being caused by the sun, or some other natural phenomenon, I suppose we should all be praying, chanting and doing all that sort of thing because the warming would be destined to continue at or near the current rate until Old Mother Nature, and only Old Mother Nature, decided enough is enough, whenever that might be. In those circumstances all we could do is delay it a little by reducing CO2 (and pray and chant etc., of course). I reckon that that would give us as a species around 200 to 300 years at most and possibly a lot fewer. It is perhaps proof that the denialati don't really believe that we are not to blame for climate change because there is a marked absence of wailing and gnashing of teeth on their part. But we should not let such absence of concern by them deflect us from taking the action that becomes ever more urgent with each passing moment. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:25 AM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Re Malloy it's a terrific thing to hear from a public servant who's able to look to the future and understand an object lesson even while dealing with immediate contingencies. -
Don9000 at 03:08 AM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Thank you, Doug. Technically, I see that the 11 am update is now showing the inlets southwest of Manhattan are potentially looking at higher storm surges than western Long Island Sound. Down along our shoreline, however, we have a lot of residential neighborhoods. Our governor here in Connecticut, Dannel Malloy, just held a noon press conference in which he made a few subtle yet telling remarks. He pointed out that the storm is unprecedented, yet noted that it was a wake-up call for all of us. The two specific points he made were that our state would need in the future to plan for similar events that have the potential to knock out our electrical grids and sewer systems in low-lying areas. It turned out that an electrical substation in Bridgeport, Connecticut, almost needed to be shut down. Malloy said the storm surge was a matter of 8 to 10 inches shy of causing a shutdown at the point of high tide. The prediction is safety shutdowns will be required this evening going into the next high tide. Of course, we are already seeing wind-caused power outages all over the state, even though the wind is still barely gusting to tropical storm strength. I think one of the interesting facts about this storm and last October's snow storm is that we are seeing a convergence of traditionally winter and summer weather events here in the northeast. All that extra energy in the climate system is finding new ways to act. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:17 AM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Grinsted, that's a very interesting and timely paper. Thank you. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:16 AM on 30 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
That's an excellent point about time correction for tides, Don. The more complicated the coast line, the more arrival of tides varies from location-location. Here's a pretty nice tool for deducing tide timing in specific locations in the NE: Nor'East Saltwater Tide Charts -
DSL at 23:53 PM on 29 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
We can add this recent one to Doug's list: Sedláček & Knutti (2012). Abstract: “Of the additional energy absorbed by the Earth over the past decades, by far the largest fraction is taken up by the oceans. Yet most attribution studies focus on the surface warming, and only few have used patterns of ocean warming to attribute changes to external forcing or internal variability. Here we use the combined observed evidence from warming of the atmosphere and ocean with the latest climate model simulations to demonstrate that both the depth profiles and spatial warming patterns near the surface are very heterogeneous when resulting from internal unforced variability. In the 20th-century simulations on the other hand, the observed spatial pattern is smooth, and the warming decreases almost gradually with depth in the ocean, consistent with observations and a penetration of the surface warming to intermediate depth by diffusion and advection. We argue that such physically motivated arguments combining different lines of evidence and types of observations offer insight that is complementary to optimal fingerprint attribution methods. We conclude that the simultaneous global warming of the atmosphere and mixed layer alone is uninformative for attribution, but the magnitude of ocean heat uptake, the homogeneity of the spatial pattern as well as the distribution of warming below the mixed layer strongly argue for the 20th-century warming being largely externally forced.” The bibliography for that paper should of tremendous help to you, Bill, and I would expect you to use some of the works referenced if you continue, here, your public thought on the subject. You may also want to check out the Knutti & Plattner (2011) response to Schwarz et al. (2010) -- and the works referenced. Ocean warming is an extremely complex process, with dozens of distinct circulation/mixing mechanisms both large and small. Check out Ari's research blog (usually reprinted at SkS) on the subject here. If you don't have access to the journals, let the blog know, and someone may be able to finagle a copy of the article you need. -
gws at 22:47 PM on 29 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
BillHunter Let's assume for a moment that there were indeed no direct measurements of an energy imbalance (note: even the decreasing amount of outgoing infrared (aka heat-) radiation from Earth into space has been measured). Then we would still know that greenhouse gases (GHGs) have increased in Earth's atmosphere (not disputed by anyone). Our knowledge of the physical properties of those GHGs says that they will "trap" heat radiation, a well-known mechanism, also not disputed. This then is roughly equivalent to putting a pot of water (Earth) on the stove and turning the heat on (GHG). Self-named "skeptics" still allege that the water in that pot will not get warmer despite the "energy imbalance" the stove is creating. (-snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Text snipped per request. -
Don9000 at 21:55 PM on 29 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Just a brief note: Dr. Masters mentions 9 p.m. for the high tide. That is probably for the Manhattan or central NYC area in general. In Long Island Sound, where the storm surge is likely to be the most severe, the high tide times for tonight range from about 10 p.m. at the eastern end to midnight in the western end where the most water will pile up. I'm glad I'm in West Hartford, Connecticut, well above the current sea-level. -
Bernard J. at 21:40 PM on 29 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Recently in the news and discussed at Skeptical Science was the effort by North Carolina legislators to set boundaries on what information could inform public policy concerning coastal development. Virginia has been tempted to go down the same path. Sandy's arrival reminds us of the folly of trying to legislate facts not amenable to or concerned with matters of law.
Worth noting in this context is the move just over a month ago by the NSW conservative government to do away with the necessity for local councils to consider, when assessing development proposals, IPCC sea level rise predictions. Someone with a bit of nous might put them on notice that Sandy demonstrates why this was a negligent move, and why the government might be considered culpable for future flooding of new developments. If only the relevant politicians could be held accountable for any future damage that results from this policy change... -
grinsted at 19:27 PM on 29 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
I recently published a paper on hurricane surge threat finding greater and more frequent hurricane surges in globally warm years compared to cold. This was looking at extremes in tide gauge data since 1923. This is just a correlation ofcourse, but it certainly makes me wonder about the future. -
CBDunkerson at 19:11 PM on 29 October 2012Hurricane Sandy: Neither weather nor tide nor sea level can be legislated
Heh, I've been looking around for detailed information on the storm. Should have come here first. Nothing too bad here yet, but the wind has been steadily picking up since Sunday morning. I work in Newark, but my office is shut down today and tomorrow along with most of the rest of the city. My biggest worry ATM is another power outage like we had with Irene and then the big snowstorm this time last year. Both of those were followed by fairly warm weather, but this time they are predicting a cold snap after the storm. They finally started upgrading the infrastructure after those outages and the solar energy boom here in New Jersey has also been helping to push towards a more modern power grid. Among other things, they've installed individual solar panels on a few hundred thousand telephone poles around the state. Each of these is tied in to the electric line running on the same pole and capable of reporting back current power flow (along with performance of the solar panel and other data). That should immediately let them know where there are power outages, but we'll have to see how well it holds up. -
Billhunter at 18:02 PM on 29 October 2012Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
It doesn't seem to me that an energy imbalance has been observed. Its hypothesized. If I am wrong about that I would be interesting in reading about it. (-SNIP-)Moderator Response: (Rob P) The oceans have warmed - that is where 93% of the energy imbalance has gone in the last 5-6 decades. That you do not comprehend this rather simple observation implies poor understanding on your part. And as stated earlier, time to start providing some supporting literature to back up your claims. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:20 PM on 29 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Long waffle rewound to original essence: Billhunter: It [deep ocean warming] has in fact not been measured. But it has. If somebody disagrees, they need to do a proper literature search and then effectively contradict findings therein. "I doubt it" is not an argument. -
Billhunter at 16:59 PM on 29 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Doug thanks for you comments. (-SNIP-)Moderator Response: (Rob P) - The cornerstone of this site is peer-reviewed science. Time to start backing up some of your inventive claims with some peer-reviewed literature. -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:49 PM on 29 October 2012Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
Bill, you said"Is there any evidence that the global warming trend has slowed in the last decade or so compared to its previous trend during the 90s?" Well yes. The surface stations.
But, as has been pointed out earlier, land surface stations measure only a small percentage of global warming. The globe in question includes atmosphere, land surface, cryosphere and oceans. When you look at all the temperature measurements, not just land surface stations, has the warming trend changed by any significant amount? When you look at the energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, it is clear that energy is being absorbed somewhere in the global system. Where do you think it is going and what form does it take? (Hint: something is melting Arctic ice and warming the oceans.) If you look only at a short period of land surface temperatures, the noise drowns out the signal, so it is not a useful metric, unless you want to obfuscate the evidence. -
JasonB at 16:40 PM on 29 October 2012Climate of Doubt Shines a Light on the Climate Denial Movement
Well yes. The surface stations.
Well, no -- and that's the point. The surface station records show a flattening in the past decade or so that makes it look like the long term warming trend might have slowed when viewed in isolation, but the whole point of the escalator graphic is that this has occurred many times in the past and every time it turned out that the underlying global warming trend kept right on going, so we need to figure out if this time is any different. (The point of the Foster and Rahmstorf graphic right below it is to highlight this fact and make it easier to discern the trend in less time by removing the influence of exogenous factors, effectively improving the signal:noise ratio.) My question was "Is there any evidence that the global warming trend has slowed?". To answer that question you need to assess the statistical significance of the recent apparent change in trend. The whole point of "arguing statistics" is to make sure we're not being fooled by what we think we see in the data. If you don't want to argue the statistics or put the effort in to working out whether recent surface station records signal a reduction in trend then you can't go around claiming that they indicate less warming in the future than projected. If you do want to go around making that claim (???) then you have no choice but to do the work to see if the data supports that claim. After all, how can you make that claim without already knowing it's true from having analysed the data? The question about whether we should act and what should be done is completely besides the point and the subject of other posts here.
Prev 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 Next
