Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 Next
Comments 53351 to 53400:
-
Rob Painting at 06:55 AM on 29 September 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
Kevin C - thanks. Barry - the 0.3mm is a global average. As the University of Colorado FAQ makes clear, it is added so as to represent the increase in the volume of global ocean. Sea level observed at any given location, i.e "relative" sea level, can be different to the global average for many reasons. One of these - gravitational self-attraction - is discussed in the next post. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:09 AM on 29 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith, I'm not sure which appalls me more, Harper's attitude towards communication or your calm support of his approach. -
Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
bibasir, here's the University of Colorado FAQ on GIA/ocean basin. -
bibasir at 04:35 AM on 29 September 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
Rob 2 "Correct - any studies that neglect this ocean basin deepening effect, and overlook subtracting the GIA adjustment, will slightly overestimate sea level rise - by 3 mm every decade." Do the numbers reported by The University of Colorado need to be adjusted? If so, what is the total adjustment now? -
michael sweet at 01:22 AM on 29 September 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
Rob, I have always wondered where the water went after the high stand several thousand years ago. I have visited many islnds in teh Pacific that were exposed by the drop in sea level the past 4,000 years and you can see the changes from sea level clearly. -
barry1487 at 01:19 AM on 29 September 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
Rob@2: Would subtracting 0.3mm/yr from the satellite-derived sea level change be appropariate for every coast line when local effects are different, including the of post-glacial isostatic flexing? Water level evens out in a bathtub, but not so around the Earth. -
Climate time lag
Forget the oil industry guy ... go here: http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/GNorth and click on the two lowest links on the right-hand side. -
DMCarey at 00:34 AM on 29 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Andy S @9 An article posted yesterday by CBC confirms that, overall, Canada is fairing well in terms of science in technology; particularly within the subjects of clinical medicine, historical studies, information and communication technologies, psychology and cognitive sciences, physics and astronomy, and visual and performing arts. This announcement corresponds quite nicely with the opening of the Mike and Ophelia Lazaridis Quantum-Nanotechnology Centre at my university - the University of Waterloo - something Canadians can be quite proud of. However, also the article also mentions that since 2006, the dawn of the Harper era, research in natural science and environment has declined steadily, where once it was one of our top strengths. This conclusion was drawn by both a waning share of contribution to research on the subject and a growing share of global experts which identify Canada as falling behind in these fields. The article by Elizabeth May linked in this SkS article summarizes quite nicely a few of the affronts on natural sciences which would lead to this decline.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] link fixed. -
Kevin C at 00:17 AM on 29 September 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
Rob, that's a very clear presentation, and clearly it's been a lot of work pulling it together. I learned a lot. Thanks for your effort. -
Climate time lag
Falkenherz I am German too, and it herz ;-) to see that page. Next time, just name "Eike" and we know what is going on. My suggestion is to not try to counter these people on that page with scientific arguments unless you are a scientist and you know what you are talking about. They belong to a group that suffers what some have called the "smart idiot effect". Because they are smart, they will always come up with a clever fallacy that convinces them that they are right. Most of what they write sounds very scientific, and is at first glance hard to debunk. It takes time and energy to do so carefully, which we do not have. The goal of these pages is usually not to show good science. That happens in the scientific literature, where he could not get this published. Instead, the goal is to sow doubt and convince the unskeptical and the gullible to oppose action on climate change. The fact that some CO2 absorptions are in saturation has been made for a long time, including by one organic chemistry professor at my own university in the mid nineties. It comes natural to chemists with spectroscopy experience to make this assumption, and confirmation bias does the rest. We can be glad that this saturation effect is actually in place, because the greenhouse effect would otherwise be much stronger, because Lambert-Beer's Law is an exponential function! (GHGs that absorb in the atmospheric window, like CFCs, are having a much stronger per molecule effect than CO2!) Climate scientists have long been aware of this, and you can read in textbooks about how this is solved. The CO2 greenhouse absorption is logarithmic, i.e. the more you pump into the atmosphere, the less effect you get. A few years ago, there was an oil industry engineer at our university who gave a talk outlining all the details, including the conclusion that greenhouse warming from a doubling of CO2 would be 1.2 K on average. He can hardly be called a biased scientist (he just failed to mention that positive feedbacks raise this result to 2-3 K actual T rise). I will try to get my hands on the talk, and can ping you then here. -
Smith at 00:10 AM on 29 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Spherica @17: It is my position that the Harper government has a tight communications policy and that bureaucratic climate scientists are no special case. Even his MPs are carefully managed, so it should come as no surprise that the bureaucracy is similarly controlled to stay on message. I understand that this is objectionable to you, however the notion that science is under attack is misleading at best. Some areas of bureaucratic science funding are being cut. It is expected that those with a vested interest in these particular areas will protest and generalize. But it does not make their generalizations accurate. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:44 PM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith, Are you really looking to deny, defend or ignore (or, somehow, all three) the muzzling of scientists? Do you think it's not happening (i.e. your veiled "conspiracy" reference)? Do you think it's okay because it's limited to climate scientists ("science in general is not under attack")? Do you think it's okay because "a plurality" of Canadians want to ignore the science, too, and don't want to be pained by hearing the truth from the people that actually know the facts? Please clarify your position on muzzling climate scientists. Are you saying it's not happening, it is happening but it's not that big a deal, or it is happening and it's the right thing to do? -
Smith at 23:32 PM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Gentlemen, I understand that you are not fans of Harper and clearly disagree with the support of a thriving economy and security. Arctic sovereignty and economic prosperity through resources development are important to many Canadians. A plurality in fact, as is Harper's mandate. And just because I can't come up with specific examples of other scientific diciplines having been "muzzled" does not take away from my point that science in general is not under attack by the Canadian federal government. In reality it furthers the point and reinforces the inaccuracy of the article title. "It's exactly the kind of government suppression and control that the conspiracy nuts waffle on about" Indeed. -
Riccardo at 22:50 PM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
It must be the google translator. Otherwise the first link posted by Falkenherz would only show the ignorance of the author on atmospheric radiation physics, at least up to where I could stomach to read. A very basic course on atmospheric physics is kindly suggested. When a self-styled skeptic argue on such a foundamental physics knowledge you know for sure that he's not a serious skeptic. -
IanC at 22:27 PM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz , I read through your first link via google translate, and it contains numerous errors that it can't really be taken seriously. Pt 1: CO2 effect is saturated. Nonsense. See article here on SkS and a detailed series on CO2 at Science of Doom , particularly on saturation . Pt 2: I don't understand what they are getting at (perhaps due to google translate). (BTW there is no such thing as an "IPCC computer model". IPCC summarizes the current scientific understanding. They don't write their own codes) Pt 3: A laboratory measurement of CO2 absorption is fine and dandy, but to really understand its effect you have to consider its cumulative effect in an atmosphere column, not just the absorption over a 10cm. Pt 4+5: They basically argue that a CO2 forcing of 3.7W/m^2 is small compared to the existing greenhouse effect, which is of course nonsense because the effect is entirely determined by climate sensitivity. Pt 6: Here's where I stopped reading, and this is why: The author proceeds to argue that water vapour feed back does not exist based on this graph:
This is the water vapour content over atlantic ocean from 1950-1972. Even if you consider this data alone it doesn't mean anything, because between 1950-1970 the global temperature was flat, and SST over tropical atlantic decreased , so even if the data shows a statically significant trend it actually shows support for water vapour being determined by temperature and strengthening the case for water vapour feedback.
The water vapour feedback argument is based on temperature not CO2, so plotting CO2 against water vapour to "disprove" water vapour feedback is misleading at best.
In addition it is now 2012, so there is no excuse for not including modern data and global coverage.
-
funglestrumpet at 20:37 PM on 28 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Thanks Caitlyn, a very touching account of how climate change is far from being the myth that some are even still trying to get us to believe. It would be a really nice gesture if the likes of Monckton, Lawson, Watts and countless others who work so tirelessly to ensure that Caitlyn's account can be matched by others who are also suffering from the effects of climate change to offer to take the lead snowmobiles when the next Inuit hunting season begins. Monckton in particular repeated tells his audiences that there is no problem with Arctic sea ice, so it would be a good chance for him to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:15 PM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz you write "2. TSI forcing is vastly underestimated, because the short term observations don't tell anything about long-term TSI nor its long term effects on the climate system. Is there any physical reason to expect the long term effect of TSI to be anything more than the integral of short term TSI? Can you tell me the physical mechansism that you think is involved? -
Rob Painting at 18:48 PM on 28 September 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
Correct - any studies that neglect this ocean basin deepening effect, and overlook subtracting the GIA adjustment, will slightly overestimate sea level rise - by 3 mm every decade. -
Steve Case at 18:30 PM on 28 September 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
From the article: With human-caused climate change now underway, the seas are rising and this ocean basin-deepening effect is once again disguised because the rate of current sea level rise is outpacing the rate of ocean basin collapse and siphoning. Satellites that measure global sea level height add 0.3mm per year to their observations to compensate for this. ... In fact, so substantial are the combined effects glacial forebulge collapse and continental levering that even today satellite altimetry measurements have be be revised upward at a globally-averaged 0.3mm per year - to account for the subsidence (deepening) of the ocean basins (Douglas & Peltier [2002]), as this subsidence is obscured by current sea level rise. Colorado Universtiy's Sea Level Research Group says: In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. So the satellite reports aren't really reporting sea level, they are reporting ocean volume. That means that applications of satellite sea level reports regarding future coastal inundations will be in error by 0.3 mm/yr. -
Falkenherz at 18:06 PM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Argh, don't spell my name like that, it hurts! By all means, if you can read German, look up some things below. This is about overestimating climate sensitivity: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/der-anthropogene-treibhauseffekt-eine-spektroskopische-geringfuegigkeit/ This is about the sun: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/klima-anzeige/fanatiker-der-globalen-erwaermung-nehmen-zur-kenntnis-sonnenflecken-beeinflussen-in-der-tat-das-klima/ (just a repition of the article from the Washinton Times) and here, comments #64 and #85: http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/der-anthropogene-treibhauseffekt-eine-spektroskopische-geringfuegigkeit/#comment_306 Disclaimer; I am aware that this website is posting 99,9%horrible sonsense. So don't read it. (It took me some time to nail them down to a few more serious points from some few 1 or 2 commenters out of thousands there. I am doing this exercise because I have to deal with similar people like this in my job from time to time. So I have to fetch them where they start from.) Just to summarize their "more serious" points to a coherent conclusion (which goes a bit beyond the "lag-topic" of this article): 1. Water vapor forcing is the main reason why a high cliamte sensitivity is assumed. This is horribly overestimated, as there is also a substantial negative forcing which comes from the increased vapourising process at higher temperature. 2. TSI forcing is vastly underestimated, because the short term observations don't tell anything about long-term TSI nor its long term effects on the climate system. -
Climate Change Denial book now available!
@87 I agree with the general notion that integrity is very important. SkS is a highly reputable site because it has integrity. Not all SkS contributors will agree with everything John Cook and his co-author wrote in the book, and thus SkS should be equated with John Cook and this book. If similar standards were put on deniers than are put unto scientists and places, such as SkS, that support the spread of scientific knowledge, we would be much better off. As it seems, not even low standards, such as your mentioned self-criticism, exist in the denialist-camp. -
Rob Painting at 17:11 PM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith - So you cannot provide evidence of other scientific disciplines being muzzled by the Canadian government, as climate and environmental scientists are. Didn't think so. Let's not beat around the bush - the Harper government fully intends to exploit the oil sands it has at its disposal, and damn the consequences. Canadian government-funded research which highlights how reckless and dangerous such action is, would not go down well with the public. It's exactly the kind of government suppression and control that the conspiracy nuts waffle on about - except that it is actually for real. -
TomPainInTheAsk at 12:15 PM on 28 September 2012There is no consensus
By the way, the SkS article here (in the "intermediate tab") gives a beautiful graph, but not as much text information as appears in the Abstract above (503)...e.g. the 1,372 climate researchers figure. It would also help to know more about the selection criteria for the dataset of respondants. Can anyone provide with a link to the full article?Moderator Response: [DB] The abstract has a link to the full article, on the right side of the page. It is also found here. -
Bob Loblaw at 12:08 PM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith @12: the other two priorities are "Environmental stewardship and climate change" ...and I can call my Ford Pinto a Lamborghini Countach, but that doesn't make it one. I tend to judge politicians by what they do, not what they say. I would not buy a used car from Stephen Harper - especially if it was a Ford Pinto he was claiming was a Lamborghini Countach. With the recent round of cutbacks, both Fisheries and Oceans office in Saskatchewan will close. I know Saskatchewan doesn't have any oceans, but it does have a lot of fish. Wit the changes to environmental legislation, fish habitat will no longer be protected unless it is a "commercial" fishery. If we can't dig it up or catch it and sell it, it's not important? -
TomPainInTheAsk at 12:05 PM on 28 September 2012There is no consensus
The best evidence of consensus on ACC appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Scienc (PNAS), April 9, 2010 (Anderegga, Prallb, Haroldc, and Schneidera). Does anyone have something more recent or definitive? Abstract Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. -
Bob Loblaw at 11:53 AM on 28 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
skywatcher: I'd formulated my comment to Doug in my head before I read yours in detail, and decided to post it anyway. One for the Department of Redundancy Department. -
Andy Skuce at 11:40 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith@12 The CHARS website (scroll down to the bottom of the page) does indeed state that the priorities are listed in "no particular order". Usually, when no priority is intended, a list is ordered alphabetically, but "environment" would then have appeared first on the list and perhaps people might have got the wrong idea that this was the most important item. As you say, Harper "runs a tight ship" and his senior civil servants must know that all too well. It's surely no coincidence that they would put "resources" and "sovereignty" at the top of the priorities list when they hear the PM saying things like: Arctic sovereignty ‘first priority’ for north, says Harper. -
TomPainInTheAsk at 11:36 AM on 28 September 2012Climate Change Denial book now available!
David Lewis (@25) made many excellent points, particularly about Kahan's finding that people who accept climate science tend to reject the equally authoritative scientific consensus among the relevant scientists about nuclear waste. We who believe ACC is real and needs to be dealt with must redouble our self-criticism to remain impeccably objective. If we err, let it be on the side of over-caution about ACC claims. To do otherwise does grave damage to our credibility. -
skywatcher at 11:06 AM on 28 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Bob, looks like we're in perfect agreement, though I like your explanation better than mine! -
Smith at 09:23 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Andy S @9: The priorities you highlight from the article are not listed in an order of precident and I think it is fair to point out that the other two priorities are "Environmental stewardship and climate change" and "Strong and healthy communities". -
Bob Loblaw at 09:15 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith @ 6: "the federal government has increased spending on science and technology in recent years" I'd agree with the comment that the Arctic Research Facility is resource-oriented, and being funded at a time when places like PEARL (noted in the post, located in Eureka) are having to shut down research because of cuts. I also know personally of a research site that is being largely shut down to avoid roughly $200K in salary and operational costs. Shutting it down and removing the unused facilities will cost millions. This is not a good way to save money. Google the mess that has happened over the ozone monitoring in Canada. The Harper government does not respect science. -
Bob Loblaw at 08:58 AM on 28 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
None of the inversion-related refraction effects are going to lead to a permanent shift in position - it's all temporary, and variable. As for the change in position: the refraction is purely a vertical shift. Why might someone think it has shifted horizontally? Well, if you haven't experienced a sunset at high latitudes, you'll be very surprised by how long it takes. The change in solar elevation is very slow, while the change in horizontal position is rapid in comparison. Thus, a sun that seems about to set will not set for another half hour, and will have moved horizontally quite a bit by the time it does. Now think of the sunrise: if refraction brings the sun "up" above the horizon early, it might be tens of minutes early, and it will be a different position on the horizon - roughly 15 degrees for an hour, so even 20 minutes would represent a five degree horizontal shift ...or so it would seem. After all, if you think of a society with a primitive technology and no good time keeping, they probably won't think of the sun rising early, because they won't have much a sense of time at that resolution. They will, however, have a very good sense of what their horizon looks like, so to them they don't think "it's higher than it should be at this time", they'll think "it's further left than it should be" without realizing that it's also early. -
David Lewis at 08:19 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
I'm Canadian, although I've lived in the US for the past three years. I am a former Speaker of the British Columbia Green Party. I was most active politically in the period 1988 to the late 1990s. Harper is a right wing ideologue who is elected from Calgary in the heart of Canada's oil province Alberta. He once gave a speech to the Council for National Policy, an American think tank, which illustrates some of the thoughts he has that for the most part he manages to keep hidden from Canadians: He started off with this: "your conservative movement is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world". He comes across in Canada as somewhat of a Bush lite but he served notice with this what he believes. He is a social engineer something like Ryan in the US, out to transform Canada and Canadians because he doesn't like what it is and he doesn't like many of its people: "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it" He displayed open disrespect for most Canadians: "if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians" He views his political opponents not as legitimate representatives of people who disagree with his vision but as the Devil incarnate: "the NDP [the federal left wing party] is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men." He claimed he was joking. The NDP is the political party that is credited with enabling Canada to adopt the most popular government program the country has, universal health care. Harper toned all this down when it became apparent there was a chance he could unite the two right wing parties in Canada who seemed to have doomed the right to be a perpetual opposition because they were splitting the right wing vote. He ended up leading the movement and became Prime Minister. He intelligently managed to stifle the wilder voices in his coalition unlike for instance what is happening to Republicans in the US where they are actually sending Ryan into Florida to tell the old folks they must be mistaken, he and the backers of the Republican Party are not aiming to eliminate old age pensions and health care. Compared to Romney, Harper comes across as a political virtuoso. Anyway, study Harper if you like somewhere else. Back to our issue, what's he doing with science. Harper was condemned by Nature magazine in this editorial which was entitled Science in Retreat. I think I would have looked for a title that encompassed Nature's prime concern, i.e. that climate science was on Harper's hit list, that also managed to convey that any science that comes up with data likely to make it more difficult for any industry to operate is also on that hit list. Otherwise you might be able to make the case he likes science. Harper made sure he didn't attend a ceremony honoring Canada's members of the IPCC who won the Nobel. He eliminated the position of science advisor so he wouldn't have to listen to warnings about climate, and he issued the order to muzzle scientists on the federal payroll, i.e. those working for Environment Canada, who now have to have bureaucratic approval before they can speak to the media. The muzzling was the kind of thing NASA scientist Hansen brushed off when Bush/Cheney tried it on him, but in Canada, Harper got away with it. Canadian scientists might learn something from that. Standing up without a disguise to speak publicly is what it takes. Weaver's newspaper article you link to in your post confirms it is climate and environment science that is under attack there, not science. Caution: political discussion follows. I think Weaver is making a mistake channelling his energy into the Green Party in BC. There is no proportional representation in BC or anywhere in Canada. Its all first past the post winner take all. As Harper and his right wing coalition discovered, if you split up into a number of little right wing parties, your opposition just mows you down each election and runs the country forever. The Liberal Party of Canada held power for more years in the last century than any party in any developed country in the world, while types like Harper languished in the shadows. Now there was a referendum on proportional representation in British Columbia that was narrowly defeated. Incredibly, the leadership of the Green Party opposed the system and advised British Columbians to vote against it. The margin of victory was so narrow, less than 2%, I am convinced had the Green not opposed, there would now be proportional voting in BC, and there would be pressure in Canada that the feds change their system of voting as a result, which would have legitimized Green politics in BC and Canada and in BC given the party the balance of power given historic voting patterns. Since the Greens opposed, I say they should fold up their tents and stop splitting the progressive or left vote. Canada tends to follow political trends in the US and we can see clearly what the Republicans in the US have become. Canadian Greens should work to unite the left in Canada to eliminate Harper and his ilk. The last time I appeared to try to enter a Green Party meeting in BC I discovered that the Leader of the Party had removed my name from the membership rolls and I was barred at the door. I was trying to debate with them before the vote took place on that referendum for proportional voting. -
Andy Skuce at 06:41 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith When you look at the priorities for the new Arctic research station, the top two priorities are promoting resource development and sovereignty. That's entirely consistent with Harper's message on the Arctic. And when you look at the price tag, $189 million over six years, cutting costs does not seem to be the motivator here. It may well be the case that the Harper government has responsible policies in areas of science apart from environmental sciences; I haven't paid much attention to what they are doing in, say, medical research or atomic physics, I admit. But it is clear that any science that gets in the way of resource development agendas will be muzzled and risks having its funding cut. I think that most people would agree that political meddling in any area of science is deplorable and amounts to an attack on all of science, since it undermines the principle of free enquiry and open communication. -
michael sweet at 06:35 AM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenhurst, Who are these mythical "serious skeptics" you refer to? Please name names. If they have posted on the web we will be familiar with their arguments and you will no longer have to interpret for them. Without specific names it appears that you are raising red herrings with your speculations about "serious skeptics". You appear to be hiding your own notions behind a smoke of "someone else serious said this". -
IanC at 06:10 AM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz, Just to make sure I understand you correctly: Suppose we ignore GHG for now. Let's say 20 years ago the earth is in equilibrium with solar radiation. TSI starts increasing, and the earth warms. Now if TSI drops back to to its original value today, are you suggesting that it will continue to warm for several decades due to the lag? -
Smith at 06:09 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Mr. Painting @7: So in reality you and others have concerns with Canadian science in climate related matters, and not concerns about Canadian science in general. Is this a fair assessment? If so why is the headline about science in general? Clearly, if Federal government spending on science is up, it is hardly fair to make the assertion that they are anti-science. With regard to the Canadian government controlling information released to the public, the PMO even keeps a tight leash on its own MPs, so I hardly think it is out of character and IMO not targeted at climate science communications. Harper runs a tight ship, that's all. Some don't like it and that's fine. I suspect this is as much about politics as anything else. -
Rob Painting at 05:29 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
Smith - Canadian government scientists cannot directly communicate with the media over climate related matters. Interviews are vetted by bureaucrats, whom also dictate what can and can't be said in such an interview. These tactics, and seemingly targeted funding cuts, are the basis for such claims. Do you have evidence of similar government tactics in other government-funded sectors? -
Smith at 05:02 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
There has been a lot in the media about Harper and the Federal government being ant-science, as this article illustrates. I think it is important to note that "the federal government has increased spending on science and technology in recent years" Some areas of spending have been cut while some areas of spending have been increased. Some areas of spending have even been newly created, like the new $200 million arctic research centre. The fact of the matter is that in the current global economic environment, smart nations need to make extensive cuts to the bloated bureaucracy. All levels of Canadian Government are making deep funding cuts to many different programs. Which programs get cut depends on the priorities of the party platform and the mandate they received from voters and evaluation of the efficiency and benefits of any given program. All those who are being affected will, be they teachers, nurses, environmental scientists, jailers, police, etc. invariably protest and claim nefarious motives and attract the attention of opposition politicians and advocacy websites. And that is fine. But when the headline suggests that "science" is under attack because of spending cuts, when spending for science is actually up, it is my opinion that it is no more than typical political rhetoric and will be dismissed as such by the public. -
M Tucker at 02:27 AM on 28 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
The Canadian government is more interested in all the billions of foreign investment, mostly from China and Middle East governments, this resource represents. They are having a big fight over this. Should they sell controlling interests in their vast tar sands fields to foreign state owned oil companies? Should they allow foreign workers into Canada to exploit the resource? Should they rapidly extract all that nasty gunk at the expense of the environment and water resources or should Canada nationalize the resource to better control its development? Having negative scientific studies just confuses and complicates these issues and their vision of vast wealth flowing into Canada. So, step one: push the scientists aside, ignore their concerns, discredit their studies, and never ever mention climate disruption. All oil, coal and natural gas rich nations are basically the same. They are going to develop that resource no matter what science has to say because it is really about trading climate and environmental security for short term economic security. -
dana1981 at 01:52 AM on 28 September 2012Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
barry @26 - thanks. SEARCH is kind of confusing in that in some places it talks about predicting the minimum, and in others it talks about predicting the September average. It seems you are correct - this won't change the general results of the post, but will change a few of the numbers slightly (Figure 8 in particular). I've added a note to the top that the post will be revised when the September monthly data are out. -
Climate time lag
Falkenherz, you make a typical error in assuming that forcing (the Watt per square meter value, aka the extra energy per time and area input to the system) has something to do with climate sensitivity (roughly: the expected warming, aka temperature, for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere). "Serious" skeptics like Lindzen, whom you seemingly refer to, claim that climate sensitivity is low and that we should already have observed more warming. However, as you can explore by follwing the link to "Lindzen Illusions" up left, he (and others) has failed to provide conclusive evidence for his hypothesis. Instead, there are multiple lines of evidence that climate sensitivity is roughly 3+-1 K, and you can explore that here . If other "serious skeptics" claim that solar forcing has a huge time lag while CO2 forcing has not, they should present that evidence. Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To demand more knowledge is just another moving the goalpost move to prevent addressing the issue in the first place. -
skywatcher at 00:45 AM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenhertz, which "serious" climate skeptics would you be talking about? The forcing from GHGs is much larger than the solar radiative forcing (see for example here). It is the dominant component forcing climate at the moment. Feedbacks (water vapour, carbon cycle, albedo etc) operate in response to any forcing, and do not select one forcing over another. "they consider current knowledge as not enough in order to accept the AGW-theory for more than speculation" ... the theory of climate is based on an awful lot more than speculation (also here and here) - you may want to check that your sources have not been feeding you fairy tales. ... as long as possible other theories are not as intensively examined and researched. Do you seriously thing that othertheorieshypotheses have not been thoroughly researched? -
Riccardo at 00:33 AM on 28 September 2012Climate time lag
Falkenherz could you please elaborate on the claim that 0.25 W/m2 of TSI increase in a couple of centuries should have more impact than 3.4 W/m2 in 50 years? I can't see how one can reach this conclusion. -
Tom Dayton at 23:00 PM on 27 September 2012Models are unreliable
New study of seven climate models finds skill demonstrated for periods of 30 years and longer, at geographic scales of continent and larger: Sakaguchi, Zeng, and Brunke. -
Wadard at 22:36 PM on 27 September 2012Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
C99, I agree. Wouldn't true conservatives conserve? Surely a real conservative would follow the precautionary principle? Be risk adverse? I'm saddened to hear that a scientist has to hide behind a mask to draw attention to the fact he can't follow his vocation unfiltered from the public view. -
Falkenherz at 21:52 PM on 27 September 2012Climate time lag
BTW, I am not entirely sure; is the 3,4W/m2 current data or the calculated rate for a CO2-doubling? -
Falkenherz at 21:50 PM on 27 September 2012Climate time lag
The climate sceptics I consider more serious argue that the known forcing of 3,4W/m2 is associated with a too high climate sensitiviy, and the part of global warming actually caused by GHG is much lower. Their main argument seems to be what I tried to reproduce here, that long-term TSI increase and lags of its transformation in global warming are not considered properly as an explanation (basically, since the little ice age, hundreds of years of increase of TSI should have more impact than a 50 year CO2-development of +3,4W/m2). As uncertainty cuts both ways, they consider current knowledge as not enough in order to accept the AGW-theory for more than speculation, as long as possible other theories are not as intensively examined and researched. -
skywatcher at 20:50 PM on 27 September 2012Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
With a little astronomy and cold climate experience, I am unaware of any obvious explanation for mirage effects that would optically displace the Sun and stars laterally. I've seen Fata Morgana mirages, but as mentioned before, they displace objects vertically. Events like June's spectacular Venus transit, which happened just as predicted centuries in advance, tell us that the Sun and stars have not actually changed their position of course! But as mentioned, there's absolutely no reason to doubt the honesty of the Arctic observers. There's another possible explanation for an apparent lateral shift: If there is some kind of change in local conditions producing a strengthening or weakening of surface refraction (and it would only be apparent in Arctic areas where there are particularly stable surface layers), it might be possible for this effect to cause a apparent lateral shift in the object's rise point. In the Arctic, the Sun, Moon, stars and planets rise at a very shallow angle to the horizon. If a given level of refraction is causing the Sun to apparently rise in a particular location at a particular time, a change in the strength of the refraction would cause the Sun to appear to rise some distance to the left or right of the previous rising point. Because the rising angle is so shallow, a small change in the refraction strength would lead to a large horizontal shift in apparent rise position, rising a little earlier or later than expected. I cannot imagine that the surface conditions are sufficiently consistent for this change to be perfectly repeatable, but if the air temperature is on average X degrees warmer, perhaps the change in refraction strength is on average Y degrees in elevation, and consequently the rise position is moved +/- Z degrees laterally? All conjecture of course, but an interesting phenomenon to explain. -
Climate time lag
Falkenherz, it is hard to follow you and to know what you actually mean. For instance, I don't believe you "cannot read mathematical formulas". Your paragraph starting with "Could it be ..." is not a theory, but speculation. That this speculation is not supported by any evidence is answered by yourself in the next paragraph. The two numbers you listed, called climate "forcings" are different, and unless you assume that 0.25 is bigger than 3.4 (note that the unit is the same, i.e. the impact on the planet is not another degree removed from this number), I do not see how you can make it support your speculation. Perhaps if you listed those "more serious sceptics" you talk about, it would be easier for us to understand what it is you want to get at. And just in case: People claiming that GHG forcing is much smaller than the number you listed are not "serious sceptics". Regarding very early Earth history, there is no reason to assume that high CO2 (likely not in "spikes" though) concentrations in the atmosphere had much different physical impact then than today. That it was not extremely warmer such as would be expected from its greenhouse properties, can indeed be explained by a fainter sun. That we may not know the "exact relations", better said the exact concentrations of CO2, levels of T, and TSI, has to do with the fact that scientists cannot retrieve these values with as high confidence (or not at all) from the proxies used as they can from younger Earth ages. Your conclusion "then CO2 necessarily must have had less effect than assumed" would only be supported if we knew T and TSI for these ages well enough and could exclude that TSI was below a certain value. Remember: Uncertainty cuts both ways. And because uncertainty for the climate during these Earth ages exists des not undermine what we know about CO2 and climate at present time.
Prev 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 Next
