Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 Next
Comments 52551 to 52600:
-
wili at 12:51 PM on 24 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
I agree that it's stupid to somehow try to dismiss, for example, Gore's message because he takes a plane somewhere. But I do think that we all need to have some idea of the level of our impact, and look for reasonable ways to reduce it. Yes, ultimately systems have to change. But it will be much easier to move quickly to renewables if our use of energy were a fraction of our current rate--in fact we would be within easy reach at that point. But if we all have ever increasing rates of use, or even just hope to maintain our absurdly high rates of energy use, it will be very hard to get anywhere near full renewable use for a long, long time--longer than we have. So really, guilt isn't the point. The point is to see clearly what we are doing so we can adequately prioritize the changes we need to make. Anyway, thanks for the input. Any further help on the math would be more than welcome. -
YubeDude at 11:43 AM on 24 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
OPa@25 "- take a marginally valid point of scientific discussion" "- exaggerate it and draw absurd, unjustifiable conclusions from it" For the typical individual who didn't: go to university, study statistics, work in research, read peer review journals, or ponder the complexities of any thing more involved the a cricket score these statements are met with a blank expression and a "so what". AGW as an issue of science is generally accepted within the science community and the data that serves as evidence for this position, though it is complex, is not confusing for those who have studied the science and understand the nature of natural systems. Now how many people in the general population are going to be able to fit in this niche of comprehension? For every Einstein there is a soccer stadium full of halfwit hooligans swilling beer and screaming at men kicking a ball. Taking a marginal point and spinning it into a unjustifiable conclusion is as easy as selling lotto tickets to the delusional. -
Steve Metzler at 10:24 AM on 24 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
I hear you about the individual emissions, wili, but I also loathe how that guilt trip thing has become one of the major tools of the dissemblers: "So, just what are *you* personally doing to combat climate change?" To me, it's the equivalent of: "Hey look, there goes a squirrel!", and is used primarily to deflect attention away from whatever is the real topic at hand. Yes, we can all try to do our bit, and I'm not saying that every little bit doesn't help. But what we really need to do is change the way we generate electricity (especially, we need to get rid of coal) to use primarily renewables, and then gear up our surface transport to run off this clean electricity. That's a big ask, but it would go a long way towards solving the CO2 problem. -
wili at 09:08 AM on 24 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Oh, many of the denialists are very smart. Certainly the Koch brothers are. It is more a matter of intellectual honesty, and I'm not sure there's a good test for that. OT question: Hansen in his TED talk and elsewhere has said that our ghg emissions are adding the equivalent energy to the atmosphere of 400,000 Hiroshima bombs every day. Could someone check my calculations (and assumptions) to see if I am somewhere in the right ball park for what that comes to for individual emissions? As far as I can figure, Hansen's figure means that, over a decade, the average member of the top billion emitters (who are responsible for about 80% of emissions) has personally released the equivalent of at least on Hiroshima bomb (again, over the last ten years). (That would presumably include pretty much everyone who posts here and pretty much everyone that we know.) Thanks ahead of time for any corrections, suggestions, tweaks, reactions... -
Tom Dayton at 08:14 AM on 24 October 2012New research from last week 42/2012
Tamino has commented exactly as IanC has, about the Zhou and Tung (2012) paper that shoyemore asked about. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 07:31 AM on 24 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Radical concept, no doubt someone will scream discrimination but... Any candidate for any seat in government must pass a simple testor they can't standforoffice. IQ greater than 120. This might be relaxed somewhat for those with University qualifications in technical disciplines - science, engineering, maths etc Wishful thinking I know but we can dream. -
Alpinist at 07:19 AM on 24 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Well from this graph (Figure 3) it’s pretty obvious that global warming stopped in 1996 1997 1998. Never mind, I just realized I had my head tilted 20 degrees…. Thanx, Tamino and Skeptical Science. Cross Posted... -
M Tucker at 06:51 AM on 24 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
This may not stand up to moderation. I may have violated the no political comments rule, but, after all you did say, "The program focuses mainly on how and why the politics and public perception of the climate issue have shifted in the USA." So here goes… "What’s behind this massive reversal?" Frontline is of course talking about just what happened in the US. Prior to the 2010 midterm elections the House of Representatives did pass a climate bill. Sure it was a weak bill but it finally passed and went over to the Senate where the minority rules. Where it takes 60 votes (we call it a supermajority) to get anything done and the Majority Leader determined that it just could not get passed; no matter what. So it died. After the 2010 elections the “reversal” happened. "What’s behind this massive reversal?" Follow the money. If Frontline is not going to talk about Citizen’s United, the conservative dominated Supreme Court, and who funded the elections of the Republicans in 2010 then we will not hear the whole story. So, YubeDude and StBranabas, that is shortcoming of democracy; if you extend the vote to everyone than every fool gets a vote. So far, in the US, the fools have packed the House of Representative so do not expect a climate bill even if Obama is reelected. He could talk until he is blue in the face about the reality of the problem, nothing will get the House to even allow a bill let alone discuss it. No matter what a given poll says, the only poll that counts takes place on election day and the balance of power in the House will pretty much stay the same after November 2. The fools are still in charge. De Tocqueville did an excellent critique of democracy. I’ll try to watch Frontline but it comes on pretty late for me. -
IanC at 05:29 AM on 24 October 2012New research from last week 42/2012
Shoyemore, As far as I can see the WUWT article actually largely reflects what Zhou and Tung (2012) (ZT12) concluded. The real issue is really whether ZT12 got the analysis right, but I'm not convinced that they did. As I understand it, ZT12 is an extension to Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) (FR11). FR11 used multiple linear regression to remove effect of 'natural' forcings on temperature, such as solar, ENSO, and volcanic aerosol. The novelty of ZT12 is that they carried out the same analysis for a much longer period, and added in atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) as an additional `natural' factor for the temperature trend. What they've found is that after doing the regression, the implied anthropogenic warming is only 0.08 degrees per decade, or half of FR11. More importantly they found that the anthropogenic warming has remained constant, and not accelerating as one would expect given the CO2 forcing. The study is sound in principle, but flawed in execution IMO. In order to genuinely separate out the natural and anthropogenic signal, you have to use the right indices to represent the natural factors. Unfortunately for AMO, the commonly used index is the sea surface temperature (SST) of the north atlantic, which itself is a superposition of the AMO and global warming signal. The Authors used the linearly detrended SST, which probably removes the linear aspect of the global warming signal, but the nonlinear part of the global temperature signal is still embedded in the AMO index used by ZT12. Thus when ZT12 removed the effect of AMO, they've really removed not just the effect of natural AMO, they probably also threw away the nonlinear signal, thus underestimating the anthropogenic signal. I think this is certainly crucial to the validity of their paper, and have the potential to completely nullify their findings. I am surprised that this question is not addressed in the paper at all. I don't have the technical expertise to check this, but I am hoping that someone will. -
vrooomie at 05:01 AM on 24 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
DSL@20: "No matter how cynical you get, it's *impossible* to keep up." Lily Tomlin, from "The Search for Signs Of Intelliegent Life in The Universe." >;-D -
vrooomie at 04:57 AM on 24 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
StBarnabas@7: With your permission, and proper attribution, I'm gonna *steal* that line! "Invincible ignorance:" Truly one for the ages! I too, battle those with severe cases of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome (essentially the same as II, but less fun to say!) and though I always strive to answer questions, once it become apparent that they suffer from II, I give up. Dana, thanks for the reminder post; I've done the same on Facetubes, too. -
itscoldoutside at 04:56 AM on 24 October 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
FYI, a more-or-less positive press article on this: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1275441--antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing-is-global-warming-over (which might be a step forward for The Star, until recently the were still in the habit of including a random denialist quote). -
StBarnabas at 04:27 AM on 24 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
First post Great site and congrats to all. To my great shame my brother in law is a climate change denier. The fact that I have a PhD in Physics and that he does not even have a CSE in maths or any science does not seem to trouble him. I just get mad at his "invincible ignorance" as my dad would have put it. Anyway sorry for the rant and thanks again for taking the time to compile this. Sadly facts do not seem to work either.... StB -
OPatrick at 04:21 AM on 24 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
There's a real classic 'sceptic' feel to this whole thing: - take a marginally valid point of scientific discussion - exaggerate it and draw absurd, unjustifiable conclusions from it - when people challenge these ludicrous exaggerations accuse them of ignoring the issue, circling the wagons, not saying what you want them to say in the way you want them to What disgusts me is that Judith Curry doesn't just buy in to this, she is a prime force driving it. -
Kevin C at 02:56 AM on 24 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Chris G: Check out the first paper in New Research #42 - model shoing increased winter negative AO. There also an older paper on colder boreal winters which Tamino has posted about very recently. The recent cold winters certainly seem to be tied up with the warm Arctic, and are dragging HadCRUT down because it misses the Arctic. However as far as I understand (which is no more than you when it come to models), I think they are the result of us just having undergone a change in the Arctic, rather than approaching one. Of course the knock-on effect on the Arctic may trigger other unforseen changes, but I wouldn't even attempt to guess what they might be. -
Chris G at 01:49 AM on 24 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Kevin C, thanks for that comparison. I've read a couple of articles on behaviors of complex systems that have tipping points. (Don't confuse me with someone with any expertise on the subject.) One of the common characteristics as a tipping point was approached is that the variation decreased. Imagine a marble in a bowl (embedded in some multidimensional, irregular surface), with some internal, inherent movement of the bowl, plus an external force on the marble. (Maybe it is a bearing and there is an electromagnetic of increasing strength nearby.) As the mean location of the marble moves further up the side of the bowl, the variance of its movement decreases. Basically, it is progressively harder to push it up the side of the bowl for both the internal and external forces, and the external force keeps it from going down the side very much. Until, the marble goes over the lip and heads toward the nearest other local minimum that represents the next region of relative stability. I've no doubt that the HADCRUT data sets have an inherent bias, but I have a nagging worry in the back of the head that this period of high temps with little increase, and no decrease despite there having been La Nina and low TSI conditions, is consistent with the earth coming to the edge of a local minimum. Lord_sidcup, what you said is very consistent with the observed bias of the people who choose to read the Daily Mail. Birds of a feather and all that. OT, thanks for the heads-up on the PBS Frontline piece. -
Cugel at 01:33 AM on 24 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
The personal connections and overlaps between top people at the Mail, the GWPF and UKIP are an open secret. Like-minded chaps who will recreate the Tory party as it ought to be and save England and the Union. While denying AGW, which seems to be a sine qua non with the far-right. It could be 40 years ago, in Heath's days. Most amusing to watch. -
lord_sidcup at 00:27 AM on 24 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
David Rose is only a conduit. His 2 recent articles (and likely many of his previous) are largely sourced from or written by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Rose's latest effort bears an uncanny resemblance to a Whitehouse article that appeared on the GWPF website on the 15 October called 'The Mail on Sunday and the Met Office' (I won't link). Similarly, Rose's original 13 October article is based on a David Whitehouse cherry-picking exercise published by GWPF on 10 October called 'An Updated Hadcrut4 – And Some Surprises' (not currently available on the GWPF website - undergoing redesign – but can be found on other denier sites). Sad to see a once respected investigative journalist reduced to repeating the one-sided propaganda of Nigel Lawson’s 'sceptic' think-tank. Curry is only in there only to add a bit of credibility. When it comes to climate change The Mail have ceded a large degree of editorial control to the GWPF. Occassionally some reasonable climate change articles do appear in the Mail, but generally the articles are heavily weighted towards repeating the GWPF line. -
DSL at 23:37 PM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
My cynicism having been said, it does seem like a fish-in-a-barrel opportunity for investigative reporters. People who can't be ignored need to start naming names--calling people out. The PBS piece is presumably a start, but of course PBS is a propaganda tool for those freakish liberals (no matter - when Romney arrives, Elmo dies). The target audience is willfully immune to many of the organizations that might produce such investigative pieces. Well shucks, I'm back to cynicism. -
Daniel Bailey at 23:24 PM on 23 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Neal, thickness is less regimentally observable. A surrogate for thickness is volume, which is better constrained and finite:
Source
-
Paul D at 22:34 PM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
How long before the Daily Mail joins the ranks of The News of The World, The BBC and The Mirror in the ongoing media scandals across the UK? -
CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
jyyh, the term 'doubling down' comes from the card game blackjack. Basically, you make an initial bet upon receiving your hand and then have an option to double that bet (i.e. "double down") after receiving the first additional card. The intent is thus that, rather than changing course after seeing the reaction to the first article (corresponding to seeing the first additional card in the game), Curry and Rose are going even further in pushing their position (corresponding to doubling their bet). -
jyyh at 22:04 PM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
sorry, off topic joke, but them denialistas must be quite thick and short for all this "doubling down", I've never understood the phrase but imagining a cardboard Curry in 16-folded layers suddenly made this one clear for me. :-D. Fold the cardboard ad and go. -
nealjking at 21:29 PM on 23 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
You could call Figure 2 "the Icecalator". But is there any graph of ice thickness? -
dwr at 19:41 PM on 23 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Any chance of a 'sea level rise escalator' guys? -
MarkR at 17:19 PM on 23 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
#62 markx , your comment starts off right, the ocean heat data do come from temperature measurements. Ocean heat isn't my exact area, but your comments would fit with the values given by Levitus. The error bars are much larger before ARGO started. Using the ARGO figures, and assuming that ARGO can measure to 1 C precision, then my global ARGO error estimate for pentadal data (using basic stats) is 0.001 C. If the previous network were 100 times more sparse than ARGO then that would multiple the 5 year error by a factor of 10 to 0.01 C (it's 10, not 100 because we're working with square roots here). And if the precision were only to +-2 C, then the overall error becomes 0.02 C. Comfortably smaller than 0.09 C (and of course, the 0.09 C comes from the trend which has different errors, not comparing just 2 points) So I'm quite comfortable with the values that Levitus et al give: much larger error bars in the past before ARGO, but still small enough to tell the difference. Simply because of the sheer number of individual measurements. If you think the Levitus et al error numbers are wrong, do you have a reference to show this in detail? -
Kevin C at 15:58 PM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
In HadCRUT4, analysis and critique I used both GISTEMP and UAH to show that the lack of polar coverage in the HadCRUT datasets caused coverage bias in the resulting temperature estimates. The impact was a warm bias around 1998, declining to a cool bias more recently, hence creating a plateau. The combination of this effect and the shift from El Nino to La Nina are sufficient to explain all of the recent apparent slowdown in warming. My latest project is to allow anyone to calculate the instrumental temperature record in their web browser, using their choice of data and methods. This allows a check of my claim above. Here is a sneak preview. First, the CRU and HadSST2 data using the HadCRUT method (note we are not even using HadSST3, so this is more akin to HadCRUT 3 than 4):
Note the poor coverage in the mini maps.
Now, the same data and calculation, but allowing each station to influence a 1200km radius, weighted by distance, like GISTEMP.
Despite the ENSO shift, we still see rather more warming over the Rose/Curry period. The results show exactly the same thing as my previous analysis.
Is the 1200km method used by GISTEMP valid? Yes, and you can prove it experimentally. I used cross validation to see which method suffers most bias if additional regions of the planet are omitted. The 1200km method is less biassed.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed image widths. -
YubeDude at 15:43 PM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
I'd suggest an investigative reporter sit down with the editorial board and challenge their decision in posting and supporting this tripe. I'd suggest letters to the NY Times be sent that ask questions of the Mail Online's editorial board. Ask the NYT why they aren't asking these questions. I'd suggest this be taken to a wider audience, one that is less concerned over the details of the article Rose wrote and is more concerned with the lack of editorial honesty and objectivity. Enlist the Guardian in asking these questions. But then I do have to agree and express being equally doubtful; doubtful that these kind of manipulative articles will be replaced by objective journalism, doubtful that our current energy programs will be replaced by more progressive programs that alter the trajectory of emissions, and doubtful a more insightful and caring society will rise from the ashes of what we currently call civilization. Animals do what animals do, we just do it with better hair and whiter teeth. -
dana1981 at 15:19 PM on 23 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
JohnB @1 - thanks and sorry, we're having some issues migrating SkS to a new server. I think the link should work now, but the new Escalator graphics won't be available on the Graphics until we get the transition sorted out. -
YubeDude at 15:12 PM on 23 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
[...]how and why the politics and public perception of the climate issue have shifted in the USA. How and why indeed. AGW is no different than any number of political issues that the public has been invited to weigh in on. Everything from foreign policy to the regulation of financial institutions are open for discussion between professional bass anglers and trailer hitch installers over a cold one down at the bowling alley. The fact that AGW deals with a complex natural physical system, a system that to this day is not 100% completely understood or has every component quantified, yet we equate the musings of a high school physical education instructor with a research physicist in discussing the viability of opposing positions. The fact that complex topics have set up shop on main street and every passing thought is given consideration helps to create a cacophonous river swollen with a flood of misinformation, the kind of misinformation that quickly dilutes what are actual "facts" in favor of personal feelings and opinion. What is as big a concern as drowning in a dialog of opinion is the fact that many of these same opinionated voices, whose insight labored in a high school civics class, actually vote. -
DSL at 15:08 PM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
What flames, YD? I'm highly doubtful of any mode of accountability being exercised. -
JohnB6223 at 15:08 PM on 23 October 2012Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
Arctic escalator image link broken -nil display. -
YubeDude at 14:23 PM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
As much as I respect this posting and appreciate the focus on actual science it appears to me to be a comparison of healthy apples and lingerie. Dana articulates the science and shows Rose's article is both misleading and unsupported by available metrics. Rose on the other hand is trying to manipulate with emotion and does so with the expectation that the details of science will fly past his readers and the bulk of society. Dana is speaking clearly and uses graphs and graphics that help to establish the reality of the science while Rose is using vague generalities that depended on the ignorance of society when it comes to the language of science. This double-down is just more wordsmith Three Card Monte used to confuse. Rose is not going to address the questions regarding the metrics or his interpolation because for his audience it will not matter or make any sense. He wants to establish a more populist tone while staying clear of the gobbledegoo of academic palaver. -I mean after all aren't all scientist and elites just a bunch of egg-heads who think they know more than us working people? It was cold this morning, AGW my ass!- sarc Think of the two of them as new car salesmen. Dana stress fuel economy standards and safety features while Rose keeps telling us how "sexy" the car is. Market research tells us that more people care about getting laid then they do about seat belts. Until we can stop this sophistry in it's tracks and hold media outlets to the flames of informational integrity we are going to be bloodied over and over again in a war of words we can't win because we don't sell "sexy". -
Brian Purdue at 09:23 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Dana, a slam-dunk follow-up exposé of David Rose’s dismal attempt to cover his tracks. With voluminous amounts of scientific research and evidence on human’s causal link to global warming, it’s a great wonder that Judith Curry and her merry band of contrarian scientists have not been able to gasp that they are on the wrong side of the argument – but there you go. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:21 AM on 23 October 2012Climate time lag
Sorry Falkenherz, I don't really believe you. You may not be Thingadonta, that would be good for you, because years ago he was explained by me what the diurnal temperature variation is about, and now he still shows his lack of understanding. Bob's request, however, is very relevant, I would more than welcome an explanation from on the diurnal temperature variation as it related to incoming solar energy. Hint: it's really not complicated at all. You displayed a dismissive attitude and rather strange interpretation of the existing science on the relationship between Milankovitch cycles and glacial cycles. That was based on minimal and superficial knowledge, despite my pointing you to the works of Berger and Loutre, which would themselves cite the works of many others. So far, I have no choice but to interpret that your "grasping" is somewhat selective and likely heading in a predetermined direction. -
Chris G at 08:01 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
I always thought it was somewhat ironic that there is overlap between the set of people who want to claim that the CRU data are not reliable because of 'climategate', and the set of people who rely exclusively on the HADCRU data sets to try to show that there has been no warming. -
Chris G at 07:46 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Re #6,#7 on the Daily Mail reputation: IDK, it may be that there are different camps within the company, or that the editors are indiscriminate. For instance, here is an article where a different writer got it mostly correct. Climate change 'will reduce bio-diversity because global warming is happening too fast for animals' That does not mean that Dana's assessment about the company not caring is wrong, but it does leave open the possibility that there is more going on there that may appear at first glance. Rose himself is a different story; willful ignorance, deliberate misrepresentation, in combination with wishful thinking seems to be his mode. What I found disheartening was that the highest N ranked comments were in the wishful thinking camp. -
Albatross at 07:00 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Nice post Dana. In my opinion, when errors are pointed out to someone (especially a scientist) and instead of acknowledging them and correcting them, they double down, then they are in the realm of actively misinforming people. Not to mention deluding themselves. It is amusing, the "skeptics" (and in that faux skeptic group I now include Judith Curry) can't seem to decide if they love or hate the 0-2000 m ocean heat content data. This issue once again highlights the internal inconsistencies and lack of coherence in the "arguments" put forward by "skeptics". -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:37 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Dana (@4)... Rose had to say 16 years because he did an article in January this year that said there's been no warming for 15 years. -
gws at 06:34 AM on 23 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #42
Funglestrumpet: May I suggest the German Oeko-Institut as reliable source. You'll get some well-researched and fact-based information there. Try this page, e.g., http://www.oeko.de/publications/dok/1193.php Contact them, they will answer and point you in the right directions, both re nuclear and renewables. -
dana1981 at 06:34 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Martin @5 - I think Curry focuses far too much on short-term variability and as a result loses sight of the forest for the trees. As for why she does that, answering that question would require me to try and ascertain her motivation, which would violate the SkS comment policy. Overall I agree with mike roddy that she's something of a mystery, and it's hard to figure out why she seems determined to miss the big picture. mike @6 - no, I haven't contacted the Mail. I rather doubt they would be at all interested in publishing this material. I get the impression they're not very interested in being perceived as a reputable newspaper - sort of the Fox News of British tabloids as I understand it. -
mike roddy at 06:08 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Dana, Nice job, as usual. Curry remains a mystery. Have you asked the Mail if they are willing to publish this rebuttal, even if it has to be a shorter version? -
Martin Lack at 06:02 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Excellent summary, Dana. Well done. Just one question: Mr Rose may well not understand what he is writing about but, is it really credible to suggest that Dr Curry does not understand everything you have explained here? If she does not understand it all then she should perhaps not be in her job. If she does understand it then she would appear to be disputing it because she does not want it to be true (a.k.a. "the motivated rejection of science"). I am very disappointed that the Met Office has declined to lodge a formal complaint about Rose (especially since he has the audacity to repeat his misinformation). I think it would be very unwise of anyone to think that these serial deniers can just be ignored. Given that our governments will only act if their electorates demand that they act, anything that perpetuates ignorance, uncertainty, doubt and/or conspiracy theory is very dangerous indeed. Therefore, all those that understand what is going on need to ensure that their political representatives demand that our governments do the right thing. -
shoyemore at 05:47 AM on 23 October 2012New research from last week 42/2012
The paper Deducing Multi-decadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis - Zhou & Tung (2012) has got itself featured on WUWT as "cutting the warming rate in half". Probaly a deliberate distortion of what it actually says. Perhaps SkS could take a look at it. It is pay-walled and I can't find a pre-print. -
gws at 05:26 AM on 23 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #42
funglestrumpet you and other blog commenters here (just two weeks ago) and elsewhere seem to trump that paper alot these days. A casual look into Leo Smith and his comments , quote "We have definite proof (France) that nuclear power works At a sane cost. We have definite proof (Germany) that massive investment in renewable energy does nothing to reduce carbon burn, and simply triples electricity prices instead." ... rule him out as a serious (unbiased) source IMHO. -
jimb at 05:18 AM on 23 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #6
Bert @ 3- you will notice that the second comment on that site restates the 'Antarctic is balancing the Arctic' meme, quoting an Australian source. -
dana1981 at 04:18 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
DMCarey @3 - the 16 simply came from Rose's article headline. January 1997 to August 2012 would at least be approaching 16 years, but Rose cherrypicked August 1997 as his starting point, which makes it 15 years. I'm not sure why he didn't just say 15, unless he simply got the arithmetic wrong. Or maybe it was to make it sound bigger than his previous 'no statistically significant warming in 15 years' claim. Who knows. There's so much wrong with his articles that it's hard to keep track of it all. This post got rather long and I still didn't cover all the errors in his second article. -
DMCarey at 04:07 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
The amount of attention Rose's first article has kicked up in the deniosphere has been particularly frustrating. I imagine this second article will do little but add fuel to the fire, error-ridden as it was. The full explination of all the ways in which the first article was incorrect, especially the energy imbalance the influences of el nino, la nina and aerosols, seem to be above the heads of a fair few that I have gotten into debates with over the course of the last week. It appears as is very clear depictions of the ocean heat storage and how blatantly cherry-picked the August 1997 date is (I made use of best-fit lines from August 1996, 97, and 98 showing the discrepency of 97) are the most effective methods of showing that the article is error prone, and work to more complicated explinations from there. Also, thanks for pointing out the 15 (not 16) part. I'm still trying to figure out where the 16 figure came from, and I'm just accrediting it to terrible math at this point -
Bob Loblaw at 03:57 AM on 23 October 2012Climate time lag
OK, Falkenherz. You say you're not thingadonta, so in the post at WUWT that Sphaerica linked to, thingadonta says" "Daytime temperatures peak hours after noon, seasonal temperatures peak weeks after the solstice, it is a simple idea to translate this to longer term solar forcing, too simple for many alarmists to even comprehend." From your understanding of what has been discussed here, would you care to explain why thingadonta is is just plain wrong? Or would you agree with his statement? -
dana1981 at 02:53 AM on 23 October 2012Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
Thanks vrooomie. It's worth noting that Watts immediately and uncritically reposted both error-riddled Rose/Curry articles.
Prev 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 Next
