Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 Next
Comments 52751 to 52800:
-
YubeDude at 12:59 PM on 18 October 2012What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum? Here are a few questions I can’t help but ask that come from the heading: Comments from Arctic Experts NSIDC Director Mark Serreze is quoted as saying, "Apart from one big storm in early August, weather patterns this year were unremarkable. The ice is so thin and weak now, it doesn't matter how the winds blow." How does he qualify “unremarkable” and can he empirically prove that “it doesn’t matter how the wind blows”? You quote SIDC scientist Walt Meier saying, "... Arctic sea ice cover is changing....large areas are now prone to melting out in summer." Isn’t it true that Arctic sea ice has always been a seasonal phenomenon with highs in the winter and lows in the summer? Is it not the nature of ice to go through cycles of melt/freeze, a kind of “changing” as temps rise and fall? Claire Parkinson at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice.” She appears to disagree, and if there is disagreement between the Arctic Experts… Do you see what I did there? Snip, clip, and disregard the bulk of your offering that details actual science in favor of misquoting Experts who I’ve extracted from context and then asking questions that are plausible yet remain fallacious; questions that give the appearance of being reasonable. The battle is over more than just the facts, science and understanding. After all, I am not trying to convince you or those who do the research and publish the papers; you are all in the minority. I’m going after the hardware store owner who won't check the quote to see if I left something out, the wheat farmer who is great with his hands but not with science text books, and that guy on the subway who reads the WSJ and is worried that his portfolio might take a hit anytime someone suggest AGW is real. Your article is excellent by the way and I appreciate your efforts and synopsis of our current status. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:34 AM on 18 October 2012The Future We All Want
Interesting that in point 5 they say "Gas water heaters should be avoided as they emit greenhouse gasses". In Queensland, govt. regulations now require gas water heaters: we cannot replace our existing electric system with another electric one. I wonder whether the GHG emissions of a gas water heater (storage type, not on-demand) would be greater than the equivalent electric heater, taking into account generation costs and line losses etc. A solar hot water system with heat-pump backup might be the low emission choice, but not cheap. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:38 AM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Dana, his book is very serial. All I have seen so far is hints of solar charging, but nothing quantitative and I have not gotten to an explanation of secular warming while answering Rob's question. -
Nick Palmer at 05:32 AM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
If I might repost this comment I left on the Met office blog? While responding to one of the "climate has always varied and natural variability swamps the CO2 signal so AGW is insignificant" types, I came up with an analogy I haven't seen before which I think might be worth passing on for others to use when trying to communicate the subtleties of the sophistry being used to fool a too credulous public. I already know the analogy isn't exact, but it does have power to communicate an idea... ______________________________________________ “But the climate is always changing” Of course it is! Within limits. So what? Climate changes, and has changed, due to natural forcings and cyclic variabilities. That clearly demonstrates that it reacts to forcings. Sticking a load of buried then re-oxidised carbon back up there is imposing a long lasting forcing on the planet that steadily forces the climate to change. The physics shows that the C02 forcing is much larger than the orbital Milankovitch forcings that send Earth into and out of ice ages over millennia. I see several others have come on here and pulled the old “natural variability swamps any CO2 signal”. Did you all miss the analogy above between waves on a beach and the tide coming in? How hard was that to understand? Another analogy I just made up would be a fat person eating, in aggregate, just 200 calories a day more than their body burns averaged over 20 years. Over 20 years plus they are going to get to be a morbidly obese 600 pounds! How would you all regard the intelligence of someone watching them who said that the person sometimes binged on 5000 calories a day for weeks, then went on a crash diet for weeks and their weight varied by 50 pounds cyclically but that the steady average one ounce a day weight gain from those unburnt 200 calories is totally “swamped” by their natural cyclic variability, so therefore is unimportant? I don’t think that is very smart. Do all you “natural variability swamps the CO2 signal” types agree now? Small cumulative dietary forcings add up to one obscenely fat individual over time. Climate forcings in the SAME direction mean steadily accumulating heat. Binges and diets give a wide CYCLIC variability of weight month to month. Just as natural oscillating climate variations give a wide variety of temperatures over decadal periods. So what? A fatty in denial of reality could easily pick and choose start and finish points to draw trend lines on the graph of their weight to fool themselves into thinking they were losing weight or stable – that they were doing fine – but they would be deluded… -
ljonestz at 03:56 AM on 18 October 2012The Future We All Want
Great to see updates on progress in international & national policy arenas, and dimensions of CC on international development. More of these type of posts please. -
Albatross at 02:48 AM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Further to my above comment, ironically the article that Curry posts (apparently journal articles are not up to snuff for her to use as support for her claims, instead she is relying on a he-said-she-said reported in the media) to try justify her claim of the "pause", includes a statement that calls out the 1997-1998 El Nino start date (the same one used by Rose) as a cherry pick: "Researchers have long argued that using 1998 as a starting point was, then, unfair. "Climate scientists were right that it was a cherry-picked observation, starting with an El Niño and ending with a La Niña," said Robert Kaufmann, a geographer at Boston University who recently studied the hiatus period.." Ultimately what we have is a global radiation imbalance of about 0.6 Wm-2, and so long as there is an imbalance, the climate system will continue to accumulate energy and warm, not always at the same pace, but physics dictates that on time-scales of 20-30 years it must warm. It is not clear to me that Lean acknowledged the "pause" either. In the quote provided by Curry, Lean is instead speaking to the role of the sun in modulating global temperatures. The author claims that Lean attributes the "hiatus" to the sun, but nowhere does Lean explicitly state that. Also, there is a problem with that reasoning, because there was a solar maximum in 2002-2003, so if the sun were the culprit, one could only attribute a slowdown in temperatures after 2003, not since the 97-98 El Nino. Importantly, the warmest year on record, 2010, was observed when the sun was experiencing an unusually prolonged solar minimum. As per usual the "skeptics" (including Curry it seems) want to everyone to focus on the noise and ignore the long-term and much more important big picture. -
Albatross at 02:23 AM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Dana @37 and 38, This latest sad saga with Curry would be quite entertaining if this were not such a serious subject. If I were you I really would not be too concerned what someone who is wowed by Salby's misguided ideas or believes David Rose's misinformation articles to be "thought provoking". Perhaps I was too unclear earlier as to what is likely going on here. Curry and Rose have a symbiotic relationship. Rose promotes her and feeds her narcissism, she gives him the sound bites and credibility that he can used to mislead and misinform. I'm beginning to think Curry's indignance about being misrepresented by Rose is a ruse. Additionally, as Dikran Marsupial has accurately noted "Judith Curry demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding about statistical hypothesis testing". That much is very evident when reading her posts. As for Curry trying to weave Trenberth's, Solomon's and Hansen's comments into her narrative. That is disingenuous on her part, because none of them assumes that the increase in global temperatures will be monotonic, and none of them assumes that periodic slow-downs or plateaus suggest that we are not heading for much discomfort and pain in the coming decades if we continue to increase greenhouse gas levels. What is more, using the Solomon quote is inappropriate because Solomon is talking about a shorter and different period than the period cherry-picked by Rose. Solomon was talking about the role of stratospheric water vapor on modulating global temperatures on a decadal scale, specifically their proposed role of cooling between 2000 and 2009, not 1997-2012. And as The Escalator shows one can easily find short-windows with cooling or no warming because of noise in the climate system. Finally, to my knowledge Hansen has not stated that there has been a significant slowdown. And in that quote Curry provides he does not do so either. In fact, Hansen et al. (2010) challenged Solomon's claim of a slowdown: "On the contrary, we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15 C-0.20 c per decade that began in the late 1970s" If anyone doubts that Hansen is concerned they really should watch this incredible talk that Hansen gave at Ted recently. Curry is playing rhetorical games and misrepresenting her peers' positions by not providing the full context of their positions. That she is doing so is shameful and unprofessional. -
Falkenherz at 02:23 AM on 18 October 2012Climate sensitivity is low
Daniel, I do question about reality, and if reality is reality, I am confident that my questions will be answered. scaddenp, Hansen and Sato 2011 are a very difficult to read for me. If I understand their chapter 5 on the Holocene correctly, they use climate forcings calculated from GHG and sea level changes (=ice sheet approximisations) and apply climate sensitivity "consensus" values and thusly produce temperature curves which match the ice core data. Seeing that there is yet another article which again specializes within more details with regards to my questions on the ice core data, I will move on to the discussion of Shakun e.a., link provided by Daniel#295. -
dana1981 at 02:14 AM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Eric @43 - I'm curious, what does Tisdale propose caused the "charging of Pacific ocean heat in the 80's and 90's"? My problem with Tisdale's argument is that it kind of ignores basic physics. He made a comment the other day that it's misleading to look at global data as measurements of global warming because that leads to the assumption that greenhouse gases are responsible for some warming. I really can't take him seriously after that. -
funglestrumpet at 01:50 AM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
The point about Rose is that his errors would seem to be deliberate. It may be that he has been unduly influenced by Monckton, who makes a habit of such behaviour. If they are deliberate errors and seeing as they have the result of hindering action to combat climate change, we can deduce that his intention is to harm his country. I think that there is a word for such behaviour, but I forget what it is. I know it begins with a 'tr' and ends in 'eason' but the rest escapes me. -
Bernard J. at 00:21 AM on 18 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Lionel at #44. I remember wincing when I hear Phil Jones say that. My immediate response was to wonder why he didn't say something to the effect of:"There is a 94% chance that the observed planetary trajectory toward warming is not due to random fluctuation: that it is in fact reflecting genuine global warming. With another year's worth of data to discern long-term signal from short-term noise that figure will increase to greater a than 95% chance that the planet is warming."
Moderator Response: [DB] Closed blockquote html tag (H/T to Composer99). -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:59 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob, yes, it's more than just "some". I agree with Tisdale that ENSO is not a "cycle" per se, but disagreed that it can cause secular warming before reading his book. When I finish reading it I will try to answer your question. The part that seemed worth mentioning is that ocean heat storage and release is a highly episodic process. IMO AGW simply adds to the storage episode which then adds to the release episode. Storage can span multiple La Ninas, neutrals and even weak El Ninos. -
John Russell at 22:38 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
For the record: George Monbiot has, in the past, pulled David Rose up on his tendency to mislead. -
Rob Painting at 22:25 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Eric (skeptic)- "It is accepted science that some AGW is stored in the ocean" Some? 93% since the 1960's isn't what I would characterize as some. As for Tisdale, he has some rather unusual ideas about ocean processes. Given that ENSO has probably been around for millions of years, can you summarize how his hypothesis is supposed to work? -
Lionel A at 21:51 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
John Brookes @41 This is the exchange between Phil Jones and Roger Harrabin of the BBC which you have in mind:B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Found here: Q&A: Professor Phil Jones . The fake skeptics (and I recognise Hank_'s handle and MO from posts at DesmogBlog) never mention that 95% significance level or its significance. If the plane they were about to board had a just less than 95% significant probability of crashing would they continue? -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:20 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
I've been reading Tisdale's ebook which blames recent warming on ENSO. While I disagree with his conclusion and some of his premises (e.g. his claim that back radiation does not really warm the ocean), his description of charging and release of heat is pretty good. Essentially there was a charging of Pacific ocean heat in the 80's and 90's interrupted by El Chichon and Pinatubo that was released in the 1997/98 El Nino. From trough to peak that raised world temperatures by 1C, with a lasting rise of about 0.3C using UAH satellite measurements which measure up in the troposphere and thus show larger swings. That late 1997 peak is an overshoot. It is accepted science that some AGW is stored in the ocean. I think it is also reasonable to assume that ocean heat is released unevenly and can result in large upward swings along with lulls in atmospheric warming especially when measured by satellite which highlights the swings. -
Paul D at 21:15 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Cornelius don't forget that UKIPs energy policy is primarily based on the idea that AGW doesn't exist or is minimal. Secondly Monckton is a member of UKIP and is or was their science advisor. So any logic in policy is based on the idea that low carbon energy is not needed. -
John Brookes at 20:25 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
The first thing I noted when I tried to produce the articles graph was that while they spoke of "since the start of 1997", the graph started late in 1997. I presume this was to avoid a cold start to the graph, but there may have been other reasons (I just can't think of any though). A couple of years ago, someone forced Phil Jones to concede that there had been no significant warming since 1995, and the "skeptics" made a song and dance about it. I suggest that from now on we just insist that any "no warming since" statement must start in 1995. A fake skeptic is anyone who thinks Christopher Monckton is a member of the house of lords. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 19:07 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Paul D @ 16 and John Russell @ 24 Thank you. I will be composing a response to the UKIP policy document and may ask again for help with a review. -
scaddenp at 14:31 PM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
A "fake skeptic" is a person who is skeptical about anything they dont like but laps up anything they like without switching on any critical faculty at all. This is frankly normal human behavior but a decent science education should give a person the tools to avoid it (esp the scientific method). A true skeptic critically examines all evidence (eg most working scientists). -
dana1981 at 11:20 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
If you want to know specifically what I think about Curry's post, I posted comments here and here. But I doubt I'll waste much more time there, because I feel as though I'm arguing with somebody who's criticizing an article she didn't even bother to read/understand. -
dana1981 at 11:10 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
hank @36 - yes, I read Curry's post and was impressed that she criticized me as 'needing to raise the level of my game' while herself managing to ignore nearly all of the points that I made in my post. She focuses entirely on the one point in Rose's article that's almost technically correct - that global surface temperatures have been pretty flat over the past 15 years, ignoring the fact that he wrongly equates this with "global warming" - manages to miss the point that I already acknowledged that the warming of surface temperatures has slowed (and discussed why that happened), ignores the fact that global warming has continued as measured by global heat content, etc. etc. I'll put it kindly and say I was not impressed by Curry's response. -
hank_ at 10:26 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
@Albatross What on earth is a 'fake skeptic'?? @Dana Have you read Dr. Judith Curry's latest post? She urges Climate hardliners, such as yourself, to; "Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from these other scientists that acknowledge the ‘pause’, mentioned in my previous post (Candid comments from global warming scientists)" She goes on to quote Trenberth, Hansen and other prominent Scientists/activists who have acknowledged the 'pause'. Hank. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:47 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Apparently, like potato chips, one was not enough. But in the end, there can be only one. -
DSL at 08:22 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
DB, are you suggesting that SA Dean returned with a mask? That's pretty lame. -
Phil at 08:12 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
sceptical wombat @6 wrote: Curry has consistently argued that a great deal of the increase we have seen (not to mention melting ice in the Arctic) may be attributable to the AMO and the PDO. These are convenient because the AMO in particular goes for multiple decades so even 30 years of increase can still be attributed to them. I'm intrigued by this; surely for any kind of oscillation to increase (say) global surface temperatures, then some other part of the planetary system must be cooling: if it isn't then its not an oscillation of heat at all. Does Curry have a candidate for this - or is it just waffle ? -
scaddenp at 07:39 AM on 17 October 2012It's not us
" clearly we have no common basis for discussion" Sorry, you saying that your graph does not show a warming trend despite it being demonstrated that it does and that you believe the globe only consists of surface atmosphere? You are admitting that you prefer your preconceptions to reality? Not many people have been prepared come right out and say that. -
dana1981 at 07:32 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
JosHag @28 - the IPCC (the basis of Figure 2) is the gold standard review of the best scientific literature to date, so it's hard to go wrong using that as your basis. Church does great work, but his is just one study, whereas the IPCC is a review of the body of literature. Neven @30 - wow, Curry calling Rose "thought provoking". That's rather appalling. More like thought diminishing. -
scaddenp at 07:31 AM on 17 October 2012Climate sensitivity is low
"we don't know the physical trigger process" How on earth do you deduce that? The physical trigger is change in insolation distribution in the northern hemisphere, which in a low CO2 atmosphere sets up a web feedbacks on albedo and GHG. Untangling this web quantitatively has been a slow process. Have a look at fig 6 of Hansen and Sato 2011 and tell me again that this isnt understood. -
Hulk29 at 07:30 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
(-snip-). The focus should be on getting accurate, unbiased results that will provide a solid base for future planning in regard to combating climate change.Moderator Response: [DB] Ideology snipped. SA Dean, Jennyg, please refer to the Comments Policy before posting further. Sock puppetry is "frowned upon, in this establishment". -
Neven at 07:25 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
"Curry herself claims to have been misrepresented by Rose in the past. Maybe she should learn from these experiences and stop granting him interviews, because he clearly views her as an easy target to support his climate denial." But when asked Curry writes: "Re David Rose, he is writing thought provoking articles, even if I don’t agree with everything he says. I enjoy my conversations with him." I'm sorry, I think she enjoys being a target. -
DSL at 07:08 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Albatross: "Do they really think that people are so obtuse as to not keep track of such things?" Yes, they do. They depend on it. If people had the time, energy, training, and/or means to fact check, opinion-makers like Rose and Watts would be doing something honest for a living. In general, it's not deliberate stupidity. It's just a lot of work to get to a point where one can be confident about the basis of one's beliefs. I'd argue that in the eyes of most people, Rose appears at least as trustworthy as government-supported scientists -- not very trustworthy. How many people have read Rose and followed up by going to the Met Office blog? How many then went to verify from a third party. And so on . . . ? -
JosHagelaars at 07:06 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Great article, thanks! I have one question, looking at the figure 2 I see that the heat content of the atmosphere is 2.3%, based on a period of 10 years. Table 2 in Church et al 2011 gives 2.0/207.2 = 1.0% for the atmosphere over a longer period 1972-2008. Would it not be better to use the Church data? -
dana1981 at 06:18 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Thanks for the heads-up Lionel. It's always a pleasant surprise when The Guardian reposts our stuff! -
Lionel A at 06:08 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Good to see you in the UK Guardian . Poor 'ShuffledCarrot'is still confused about what Phil Jones said about temperatures it would seem. I don't think Judith will be much pleased with that picture either. -
Paul D at 05:34 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Interesting graphic and article JR. -
Doug Bostrom at 05:27 AM on 17 October 2012New research from last week 41/2012
Perhaps I just miss the good old days when climate was all nice. Cursive rather than cursed. -
John Russell at 04:31 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
@Cornelius Breadbasket at 00:31 AM on 17 October, 2012 This might be useful to you. Infographic: What puts up your energy bill? -
Daniel Bailey at 03:50 AM on 17 October 2012Climate sensitivity is low
@ Falkenherz"I ignored Milankovitch cycles (MC) because they are uncontested"
Perhaps not by you (at this moment) nor by most scientists (some do) but there are those who deny this, daily."nobody really seems to know the physics of the trigger for global temperature changes"
You project here. Try reading this post (including the comments threads, which should be mandatory)."My research here is about climate sensitiviy, and specifically why consenus seems to be that it is high."
Um, "consensus" is that climate sensitivity is bewteen 1.9 (or so) and 4.2 (or so) with a central estimate of 3.0 being strongest. That you characterize that as "high" speaks volumes." if we don't know the physical trigger process"
More projection, again. Suggestion: more research & reading (by you), less trying to shoehorn reality into the worldview you have chalked out for it. -
dana1981 at 03:40 AM on 17 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
JoeRG @55 - MarkR @58 is correct. Fair point that it may be overreaching to say that the rise in global heat content has accelerated, and it's not something we said in the paper itself. P.T. @57 - NCDC and GISS use the same raw data, but each applies their own adjustments to that data in order to estimate the average global temperature. The only thing their datasets have in common is the use of the same raw data from the GHCN. See here. -
dana1981 at 03:34 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
I have zero sympathy for Curry here. Rose is notorious for distorting climate science in every article he writes on the issue, and as others have noted, Curry herself claims to have been misrepresented by Rose in the past. Maybe she should learn from these experiences and stop granting him interviews, because he clearly views her as an easy target to support his climate denial. -
Falkenherz at 03:11 AM on 17 October 2012Climate sensitivity is low
Philippe, I ignored Milankovitch cycles (MC) because they are uncontested and I assumed they would have a certain known impact on global temperature, thereby initiating ice ages. Reading through the links you provided, this assumtion is wrong. If I understood correctly, nobody really seems to know the physics of the trigger for global temperature changes, only that MC must be a trigger, and it is assumed that glacial changes on the landmass-rich northern hemisphere play a key role. In other words, there is no initial rise of global temperature as the initial trigger, but rather some severe local imbalances. This just in short, because there is that other article specifically on MC. My research here is about climate sensitiviy, and specifically why consenus seems to be that it is high. So right now I am puzzled why people assume a high climate sensitivity if we don't know the physical trigger process. After all, if I understood correctly, it seems like local insolation can peak at 600 W/m2, which would probably be a very strong trigger with only a low sensitivity required. I am unsure where to continue discussion. Maybe I best move on to the MC article. (I start feeling like a hyperlink nomad and comment-parasite. Do you guys maybe have a forum?) CBDunkerson, thanks for confirming no real strong TSI changes connected to the ice age cycles. -
Albatross at 02:50 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Talking above of internal inconsistencies with arguments used by fake skeptics. As I alluded to earlier, last year when the BEST project not-surprisingly corroborated the research of climate scientists. Scrambling, fake skeptics then declared: "Global Warming is Real" Delingpole went on to say, "It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend..." There you have it from the mouth of a prominent fake skeptic. Yet, only 10 days later (!), Delingpole penned a diatribe titled, "Global warming, yeah right". Fast forward to present and now the fake skeptics have reverted to recycling another old favourite myth of "no warming in X years", with suggestions that the UK Met. Office is trying to hide something thrown in for good measure. This is beyond a joke. Do they really think that people are so obtuse as to not keep track of such things? It is insulting and the public should be outraged that some "skeptic" scientists and media outlets are so intent on continually misleading and confusing them on this issue that is of utmost importance. This sad saga yet again demonstrates the inability of fake skeptics to mount a coherent, internally consistent and credible argument against the theory of AGW. What is especially egregious though is that a "skeptic" scientist is enabling them. -
Albatross at 02:24 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
ScepticalWombat @6, "Curry has consistently argued that a great deal of the increase we have seen (not to mention melting ice in the Arctic) may be attributable to the AMO and the PDO..." Yes it is very convenient, especially if one wishes to obfuscate. A blog post in the next day or two will speak to this myth. The fact of the matter is that researchers estimate that anything from 60-90% of the recent ice decline is attributable to anthropogenic warming. Additionally, other research has shown that the current loss of Arctic ice is unprecedented on a millennial time scale (e.g., Polyak et al. 2010, Kinnard et al. 2012). Both those papers are covered at SkS here. It is also odd that Curry appears to be of the opinion that uncertainty is always skewed in the direction of lower climate sensitivity, yet at the same time she argues that the same models with a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5 C global warming for doubling of CO2 are deeply flawed because they are underestimating the loss of warming. How can models that are underestimating the loss of Arctic sea ice and sea-level rise at the same time be claimed to be too sensitive to the doubling of 2xCO2? So the internal inconsistency of this argument is obvious, as it is with most of the arguments made by "skeptics". -
Albatross at 02:13 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
ScepticalWombat @6, ".. fairness to Professor Curry she does claim that she has been misquoted " That would ordinarily be a reasonable assumption. But there is a history here that suggests something else is going. Just under a year ago, BEST released their results and the fake skeptics were up in arms because the BEST results corroborated the warming in the land surface temperature record that climate scientists had been telling us about all along. At that time (October 2011) non other than David Rose interviewed Dr. Curry. She took exception to the fact that some of the statements that Rose had attributed to her and stated that she had been misrepresented. Tamino notes: "Judith Curry protests that she was misrepresented by the article in the Daily Mail, and several readers have mentioned that David Rose, the author of the article, is just the man to do such a thing." One has to wonder then why on earth Curry would elect to give Rose another interview given her recent experience with him? Oddly, Curry is again claiming that she has been misrepresented. So much back-peddling by CUrry, but in the meantime the horse has bolted around media outlets sympathetic to fake skeptics. Why would anyone again speak to a journalist a) who is infamous for misrepresenting people, and b) who has misrepresented you in the past? Now Dr. Curry is not that gullible. No, something else is going on here, and I'm sure that astute readers can figure it out. -
DMCarey at 02:12 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
"Bourgeois Left-wing academics" That one really made me laugh It seems like something Watts would imply, but with a little more finesse I suppose. -
Carbon500 at 02:03 AM on 17 October 2012It's not us
adelady: thank you for your comment. CBDunkerson: I agree - clearly we have no common basis for discussion. Ditto KR. -
DMCarey at 02:02 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Many thanks for the article Dana, certainly helps me take the battle to the committed misinformers on the CBC. Mores the pity, similar to the trend Cornelius pointed to, there is growing criticism to turbines in Canada. Mostly, we Canucks seem to be in favour of theidea
of turbines, but it is a "not in my back yard" sense. As more information is presented that warming is still occuring, green energy helps the economy, the non-climate related impacts of fossil fuel energy production are enormous and that the projected impacts of catastrophic climate change are not exaggerations, hopefully the trend of criticism will be reversed -
BWTrainer at 01:44 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Neven @ 13 - Wasn't Dr. Curry also "misquoted" during the recent PBS NewsHour dustup? It could all trace back to the same original quote, but if she is honestly having that much trouble getting her point across, you would think she may try a different approach. -
Paul D at 01:40 AM on 17 October 2012Misleading Daily Mail Article Pre-Bunked by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Cornelius I think the increase in prices is due to a number of factors, including low carbon energy and grid investment etc. but not solely. Regarding the UKIP doc. Reading the first few paragraphs... The 15% figure for renewable energy is often a misquoted and mis-used one. It applies to ALL energy use, not just electricity generation. It was (mis)used by Chris-Heaton Smith in his campaign to get MP support to stop/reduce wind farm installations. I think it is estimated that around 30% of UK electricity will have to be produced from renewables to obtain a 15% overall renewable energy portfolio by 2020. Renewables currently (in Q1 of 2012) account for about 11% of electricity generation, that is all electricity generation renewables, not just wind turbines. The spinning reserve thing quoted for gas turbines I would say is incorrect, such a turbine probably only takes about 15 minutes or so to run up. Much of this issue is in designing systems. In any case there are some good energy storage systems being developed now that have a lot of potential, use cheap abundant materials and don't depend on batteries. Such as: http://www.isentropic.co.uk/ The keep the 'wheels of industry' turning bit is amusing considering most of it has been exported to China et al! UKIP twist the purpose of the current renewables plans. Current renewables installation is to offset established fossil fuel electrcity generation, so inevitably you are still going to have fossil fuel generators as well. What they are doing is assuming that the current plan is to shut down fossil fuel plants on a like for like basis. Some of that will happen but the goal is to cut CO2, not to take plants offline. The bigger issue is later when we need to have a higher percentage of low carbon energy. But that's when the new energy storage and smart technology will kick in and we will need fewer fossil fuel fired power stations.
Prev 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 Next
