Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 Next
Comments 54751 to 54800:
-
David Lewis at 16:08 PM on 2 September 2012Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica
Kunzig has an article at National Geographic that has some background on what the authors of this paper have been doing. -
Andy Skuce at 15:39 PM on 2 September 2012Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica
In the event of a rapid loss of a few hundred metres of ice sheet thickness, it is conceivable that hydrates at the margins of stability could be rapidly destabilized due to a drop in pressure. On the the other hand, hydrates buried at depths of a few hundred metres below permafrost might have to wait for centuries or millennia before heat from the warming surface penetrated to those depths due to low thermal conductivity of rocks and the thermal buffering effect of the overlying permafrost. There's a case to be made, therefore, that hydrates under ice sheets (assuming they exist) may pose a more immediate climate threat than hydrates buried beneath permafrost. For example, Weitemeyer and Buffett (2006) proposed that hydrates under the N American continental ice sheets played a role in the last deglaciation. -
Andy Skuce at 15:07 PM on 2 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Jay@79 I did a SkS blogpost on that aspect of Ridley's past, about a year ago. As Monbiot has noted, Ridley has a brass neck to lecture anybody about how risks are overplayed and how government intervention is invariably counter-productive, given his history of presiding over a banking disaster and then begging for a government bailout.Ridley claimed to the subsequent Parliamentary enquiry: We were hit by an unexpected and unpredictable concatenation of events. As Samuel Johnson said (about people who get married for a second time), Ridley's persistent "rational optimism" is a triumph of hope over experience. There's some irony in the fact that Joel Upchurch seems to be supporting Ridley's rosy climate forecast by implying that economic growth will not be anything but exponential, an argument that would be anathema to an economic growth bull and resource cornucopian like Ridley. One last thing, the idea that the temperature increase will be a logarithmic response to cumulative emissions is not correct. Because of diminishing carbon sinks, the temperature response to cumulative CO2 emissions will likely be near-linear as atmospheric concentrations rise. This is explained well at Kate's Climatesight blog. The relevant paper can be downloaded here. Yet one more last thing: projections of greenhouse gas concentrations generally do not incorporate carbon cycle feedbacks. Schuur and Abbott for example, recently did a survey of experts in the permafrost field who forecast that by 2100, there would be an additional 232-380 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent released from the degradation of organic material in thawing permafrost. That amounts to roughly an additional decade of emissions at current levels by 2100, an amplification to greenhouse gas concentrations that we absolutely don't need.Moderator Response: [DB] Andy, your link is broken; was it this one? http://climatesight.org/2012/05/16/cumulative-emissions-and-climate-models/ [Andy S] Yes, thanks. I have fixed it now. Apologies. -
jimspy at 14:44 PM on 2 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
We don't need a bigger graph, we need a smaller carbon footprint. -
Jay Alt at 13:30 PM on 2 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Monbiot wrote on Ridley's philosophy this summer. His time as chairman of Northern Rock coincided with that bank's disastrous failure. Faulty investments required a huge taxpayer bailout by Bank of England in 2007 and led to his resignation. Of course, this hasn't lessened his contempt for the protective role of governments in economics. Consequently, Ridley is an unlikely source of expertise about long-term risks. "Matt Ridley’s irrational theories remain unchanged by his own disastrous experiment." Guardian -
Doug Bostrom at 13:26 PM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Here's a thought: Lewandowsky 2012 itself is a stimulus created for the purpose of experimentation. :-) -
Tom Curtis at 13:12 PM on 2 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Joel Upchurch @76, I note that a population growth to 9 or 10 billion is a growth by 30 to 40%. As DB notes inline, essentially that means your answer to my question is, that, no, population will not plateau at current levels; and indeed, your estimate is essentially the same as my earlier estimate. Your specific comments about current population growth are, as it happens, incorrect based on the CIA World Fact Book (as reproduced by Wikipedia). They are also, however, of topic, so I will not pursue them. -
scaddenp at 12:58 PM on 2 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Joel, it would help if you made it clear whether you think the calculations in the SRES scenarios are at fault(which would imply you think a linear extrapolation of current trends is better than SRES methodology) or whether you think the economic and population growth projections of the A scenarios are unlikely. I would note that current CO2ppm is already ahead of A1F1 projection. Which SRES storyline for growth etc is more likely? -
Joel Upchurch at 11:41 AM on 2 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Tom Curtis @68 Those are very good questions. I can't give you a complete answer tonight, but let me start with B. I first realized that the earth population was peaking when I read "Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto" by Stewart Brand. It was a shock when I realized that Mexico is at ZPG. Only South America and Africa are still experiencing population growth. The demographic projections are that the world population will peak somewhere between 9 and 10 billion around 2050. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] You were asked:
"b) Or will the human population essentially plateau at current levels, and why?"
The first portion of your response was on-topic to that question and translates to: No.
Further off-topic digression snipped.
Note: In order for SkS to provide you with the information you have requested, you will have to update your profile with a valid email address (part of the Comments Policy requirements).
-
geoffchambers at 11:05 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
John Cook’s response does not clear the point up, since he mentions a post in 2011, while the fieldwork ended in Oct 2010, according to Lewandowsky’s paper. The six blogs known to have posted the survey all did so between 28th and 30th of August. 2010. Cook says “Skeptical Science did link to the Lewandowsky survey back in 2011 but now when I search the archives for the link, it's no longer there so the link must've been taken down once the survey was over”. But the survey was already over by November 2010.Response: [John Cook] My apologies, it was 2010, not 2011 (have updated the original response). -
Joel Upchurch at 10:52 AM on 2 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Tom Curtis @67. We are not ignoring the pipeline, but it is irrelevant to the question of how much warming we could expect between now and 2100. If we ask a weatherman how hot we expect it to be Wednesday, we don't have to expect the world to end Thursday to expect an answer. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] "We are not ignoring the pipeline, but it is irrelevant to the question of how much warming we could expect between now and 2100"
Completely incorrect, as has been pointed out to you. You are pointedly avoiding dealing with this; this reflects poorly on you.
Goalpost shift snipped.
-
chriskoz at 10:24 AM on 2 September 2012Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica
yocta, your link to Yurganov image is broken. I think you meant to show this link. It's hard to read that image, an eye-balling allows only a vague conclusion that CH4 increased from perhaps 1880 to 1900 ppb around arctic shallows from Nov2008 to Nov2011. Is this increase signifficant trend or just noise? I don't know. At the same time in Mauna Loa, the annual variations appear to be within 1770-1850 ppb. And from their picture within, the same anual cycle appear to apply in the arctic. I think Yurganov's signal is too insignifficant at this point. -
Mal Adapted at 08:59 AM on 2 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
It may be late in the discussion, but shouldn't someone call Dale's attention to the argument that AGW is a tragedy of the commons? -
JoeT at 08:57 AM on 2 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
Rob -- Thanks for the Seager reference. I had trouble getting the paper you linked to. However this worked for me. The paper is 2012, btw. I haven't got to the paper yet, but Seager looks like he would be an excellent source for understanding the physics of drought. He has an interesting website and wrt comments @3 and @5 about whether greenhouse gases would bring on El Nino or La Nina and how that would affect the US Southwest, he had this to say : Currently climate models are all over the map in how the tropical Pacific Ocean responds to rising greenhouse gases. The climate modeling group at Lamont has argued that rising greenhouse gases will warm the western tropical Pacific Ocean by more than the eastern ocean because, in the west, the increased downward infrared radiation has to be balanced by increased evaporative heat loss but in the east, where there is active upwelling of cold ocean waters from below, it is partially balanced by an increase in the divergence of heat by ocean currents. As such, the east to west temperature gradient increases and a La Niña-like response in induced. This is the same argument for why, during Medieval times, increased solar irradiance and reduced volcanism could have caused a La Niña-like SST response, as seen in coral based SST reconstructions. If the Medieval period is any guide as to how the tropical Pacific Ocean and the global atmosphere circulation respond to positive radiative forcing then an induced La Niña could regionally intensify the general projected subtropical drying and the American West could be in for a future in which the climate is more arid than at any time since the advent of European settlement. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:27 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Tom, the best argument for the paper is that "skeptics" must be quoted as you did and we have yet to determine the definition. All in good time. -
Albatross at 08:15 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
So this is how the fake skeptics deal with cognitive dissonance. Said fake skeptics are doing a brilliant job if behaving just as predicted and demonstrating the very traits they are trying to rail against. That they are oblivious to that fact and keep scoring own goals by continuing to post is fascinating. This is yet another thread that could keep psychologists busy for a while ;) Moreover, the desperate attempts by conspiracy theorists to try and deny that they are conspiracy theorists by suggesting that a conspiracy is afoot would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic. Just a gentle reminder to everyone that the topic of this post is: "AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty", and not the Lewandowsky paper. That we have to have a special session at AGU with that title is so very unfortunate, but is demanded by the habit of fake skeptics to misinform and attack scientists as demonstrated by their behaviour on this very thread. -
Tom Curtis at 08:08 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
villabolo @25, My estimate up to about a month ago was 2030 +/- 5 years. Unsurprisingly, the current melt season is giving me reason to consider serious revision of that estimate. However, I think it inappropriate to significantly revise predictions based on just one melt season so no revision till at least this time next year. -
Tom Curtis at 08:04 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Eric (skeptic) @23, I can understand your not liking the paper, but I though you were better than to manufacture falsehoods about it. In fact Lewandowski is quite specific that the results only apply to "skeptics" who debate on blogs, rather than to all people who reject climate science:"One potential objection against our results might therefore cite the selected nature of our sample. We acknowledge that our sample is self-selected and that the results may therefore not generalize to the population at large. However, this has no bearing on the importance of Motivated rejection of science 13 our results|we designed the study to investigate what motivates the rejection of science in individuals who choose to get involved in the ongoing debate about one scienti c topic, climate change."
Nor is any attempt made to suggest that all "skeptics" are free market ideologues, or accept conspiracy theories other than those explicitly related to climate change:"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scienti c evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and in uential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we nd that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scienti c ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scienti c ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical con rmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists."
There is no broad brush approach. As I have previously noted, the title does not reflect the most important finding of the paper, and is offensive. There are also problems with the methodology, but those problems are very difficult to avoid at a reasonable cost (ie, at a cost within the budgets likely to be available to researchers), and are common to most research of this type. More importantly, the paper reveals nothing we did not already know. The activity of the free market is known to by highly rated by most blog "skeptics", and acceptance of conspiracy thinking has been directly observed in the very common charge that global warming is a conspiracy designed to bring about one world government - a theory endorsed by Monckton, which endorsement has had no appreciable impact on the willingness of other prominent "skeptics" to take him seriously. More recently, Monckton has publicly endorsed another conspiracy theory (birtherism) with no apparent loss of regard by other "skeptics". I cannot help but feel that the main reason "skeptics" are hot under the collar about this paper is not the title, but the fact that the very sober reports in the actual paper are a genuine reflection of reality - and they know it. -
villabolo at 07:28 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
Moderators, forgive me if this seems to be somewhat off topic. I'm curious to know when the commentators believe that the Arctic will be ice free during the summer; for about a week in duration; not counting a band of ice north of Canada and Greenland. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:59 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Tom, in a recent example, McIntyre criticized the Tobs portion of Watts' paper. I believe that Watts, Pielke or McIntyre should be critiqued in specific cases as has been done numerous times here. People can then make up their own minds on motives The Lewandowsky paper takes a broad brush approach and that is quite unscientific even without considering suspect methodologies. -
yocta at 06:55 AM on 2 September 2012Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica
It seems that the methane measurements are seem quite difficult to measure accurately over such a large region. I am particularly interested in the methane anomoly measurements in the region. I have found this image produced by Dr. Leonid Yurganov, Senior Research Scientist, JCET, UMBC. I would imagine with the even further retreat of the arctic ice that it is much worse now than when this image was compiled. This coupled with the graphs showing our Arctic's ice death spiral are powerful signs. I cannot see how with both of these the skeptic arguments could be used against arguing that the arctic melt is unprecedented. -
Lanfear at 06:44 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
Due to idle curiosity I started wondering whether there would be a possibility for the arctic ice to become 'dislodged', and if, then what would happen. So looking around I found this schema (from here) of the polar currents. My understanding based on this is that it is the transpolar drift that pushes the existing sea-ice against the coast of Greenland as well as the islands to the west and thus also push it southward for more rapid melting. So no spinning ice in the Beaufort gyre. Or have I missed something else? -
yocta at 06:41 AM on 2 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Personally, I don't feel that people properly understand that we are locked in, so to speak to at least a world with 2 degrees more warming, that even if action is taken today the graphs aren't going to change direction. I have tried searching the interwebs to see if any studies or surveys (such as this one by the George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication) but it is difficult to see what people's understanding or opinions are on the matter on this. I would be interested in the results of this question "If we were to stop emissions today do you think that future warming be avoided?" A further 2 degrees warming, for me is an extremely concerning scenario. Non science folk I have spoken to don't really understand that even if we could curb emissions we are on track to a vastly different climate that people alive today grew up with. -
Foxgoose at 06:33 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
That seems to raise a straightforward question of fact - did Skeptical Science post a link to Stephan Lewandowsky's survey during the stated fieldwork period prior to October 2010? Presumably, in the interests of openness transparency and credibility, John Cook can clear up this little point for us.Moderator Response: [DB] A straightforward statement of fact: in the interests of openness, transparency and credibility, John Cook already has, here. Presumably, you must have missed that little point. -
Tom Curtis at 06:26 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Eric (skeptic) @19, the fact something is trumping "analysis of the facts and science" in general within the "skeptic community" is easily demonstrated by such examples as Monckton and Anthony AHI* Watts. That the motive of the more rational "skeptics" is not scientific is demonstrated by the fact that the intellectual sins of their, frankly, absurd companions in arms is not considered reason to distance themselves from them. Clearly the merits of Anthony AHI Watts is judged by Pielke and McIntyre, not on the basis of the scientific virtues of his blog, but on the political impact of that blog. The question then, is not have the great majority of "skeptics" divorced themselves from the scientific tradition; but why have they done so? (* Antarctic Heat Island) -
geoffchambers at 05:45 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
You snipped this part, which doesn’t come from stolen intellctual property. “Lewandowsky claims in his paper that the fieldwork was completed by October 2010, and that Skeptical Science participated. Apparently one or other of these claims is mistaken”. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:25 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
From the Lewandowsky paper: "Rejection of climate science was strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez-faire view of unregulated free markets." The implied cause and effect is one of the numerous hazards of this type of research. There is a disagreement over the cost of externalities of fossil fuel use which is tied to disagreements over sensitivity, attribution, accounting for costs, and ignoring benefits. Certainly the skeptic community needs to be more responsive to the CO2 externality problem but that doesn't mean ulterior motives or preconceptions trump analysis of the facts and science. -
vrooomie at 05:02 AM on 2 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #33
John, apparently, there are native species in your home state...who knew? However, *not* saguaros! Cactus species native to Wisconsin I'm certainly amazed: we also have hardy prickly pear in Colorado, but in the south cholla and a few others are able to weather the climate. Species migration is one of those interesting things we're seeing wrt AGW, and is one of the more telling bits of evidence it *is* getting warmer. The biggest one of interest to me is the killing of most of our lodgepole pine, from the Japanese pine beetle, an invasive species which, 40+ years ago, wouldn't survive winter conditions in Colorado's mountains. For quite some time, it has, and its effect culminated in the fires you heard about this past summer, many of which are still burning. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:59 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
"The response in some quarters..."
Exemplifies nutjobbery in general and (-self snipped-) in specific. Durned Comments Policy prohibits most of what comes to mind to describe this. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:51 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
What an interesting conversation. There's a lot to learn here but it's not about the mechanics of a survey, more about what happens when uncomfortable information is delivered through research. The response in some quarters to Lewandowsky's paper seems an inadvertently authored metaphor for the larger problem of societal acceptance of climate change research, amusingly complete even in the detail of perusing purloined communications for hints of wrongdoing. Might be worth pausing to think about that. -
sol6966 at 03:13 AM on 2 September 2012Skeptical Science now a Nokia app
hi Clicked on the Nokia App link only to be greeted with a page saying "Sorry, this item is no longer available" Is the Nokia App unavailable temporarily? If not the link should be removed. -
chriskoz at 01:57 AM on 2 September 2012Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica
I'm interested to know more about the relationship of Antarctic vs. Arctic clathrate reserves but I don't have access to the full article. The total amount of organic matter (10 times that of the arctic - 21 exagrams according to this study) does not mean much to the warming potential, IMO. What does matter, is the clathrates under AIS: in this study - 400 petagrams - the same as clathrates under arctic tundra. However, the total NH clathrates also comprise those under shalow depth of Arctic ocean, which is at least 1400 petagram by Shakhova et al. (2008), with bigger warming potential, especially considering Arctic acceleration with 2012 rapid ice melt. So far, I conclude, that this Antarctic study did not reveal anything more worrying that we already know: SH methane reservoir is smaller and melting slower than this on NH. -
John Hartz at 01:22 AM on 2 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #33
@vroomie #3: I was born in Wisconsin and spent most of my life residing in the Madison area. I traveled the state extensively. I do not recall ever seeing or hearing about cactii native to the state. There are lots of sand-bur weeds however. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:21 AM on 2 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
Discussions of climate sensitivity are best taken to one of the CS threads, such as this one. -
Bernard J. at 01:08 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
The Year Santa Drowned. I will wager my last hot dinner you just started--even before it's needed--a new GW meme.
A meme that's already in play, and I'm sure that I wasn't the first. It'll be interesting to see just how it's used for the first time in the mainstream media, once an ice-free summer Arctic is achieved... -
vrooomie at 00:53 AM on 2 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #33
Steve, you might have cactus in WI, but I'll go on record as saying you do *not* have Saguaro cacti, and as DB states, the cartoon, and perhaps your response, illuminates the cognitive bias and denial of the those who call a simple cartoon "silly." -
vrooomie at 00:47 AM on 2 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
curiousd@14, that is a topic about which Ph.D.'s have been attained; My take is this (and I only gots a BSc in geology), that people almost always, will deny the very *existence* of the tiger that has them by their own tail, until they see the gnashing teeth of that tiger arriving at their throat. NO one wants to admit they are the problem; said another way, only wet babies like change. Clearly the 'facts' of the case, asserted by something north of 97% of the scientific opinion that is relevant to this issue have made no difference to the Moncktons, the Lindzens, the Christys, the____________________(fill in the blank), and frankly, they are the ones who most loudly decry us earth scientists as the ones who're are on the 'gravy train.' Extant data, and the persistent yelling of those folks, belies that bit of evidence. So, the *only* answer I have for you is this: keep asserting scientific support of the problem, kepo debunking the deniers, again and again and (Mod, please pardon the caps) AGAIN, and maybe, just *maybe*, the tiger of cAGW will be short-circuited at our.....crumbs....before they arrive at our jugulars. For me the *single* most important resource I have to help me make the point to those who deny it all, and to which I read and study every day, is SkS. Sorry for the OT post, but thought I'd take a shot at addressing your question. -
Jeffrey Davis at 00:43 AM on 2 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
re: 14 Why would you prepare for the lowest possible danger? (And why you would believe it?) Responsible drivers buy more automobile insurance than the minimum required by law. We don't fund the army on the cheap. People opt for aggressive therapies to treat their cancers. Responsible people who are wealthy enough don't count on only their Social Security check, but save/invest more instead. And on and on. As for the minimum climate sensitivity, the 1.5C figure demands that there be NO feedback response. The 1.5C figure consists only of the amount of heating that a doubling of CO2 will produce. (And why assume we'd stop at 560ppm if we refuse to do anything now?) There's nothing magical about the energy produced by increasing GHGs. It's just energy, and there are always feedbacks. But we've had around 1C of warming already and we're at ~390ppm from a base of 280ppm. At 2ppm/year (the current rate), we'll hit 560ppm in around 80 years. Only .5C more warming over the next 80 years? Who could possibly believe that? -
vrooomie at 00:35 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
Glenn@6: The Year Santa Drowned. I will wager my last hot dinner you just started--even before it's needed--a new GW meme. Not sure whether to cry or to laugh.... For nigh on 10 years now, and given my increasingly cynical nature (and this, from a born, inveterate optimist!) I've been thinking that it *will* take a truly catastrophic event like the total melt-out of the Arctic to grab folks by their short-n-curlies, before anything really substantial gets done. I just hope that point-of-action isn't too late. "No matter how cynical you get, it's *impossible* to keep up." -Lily Tomlin, from "The Search For Signs Of Intelligent Life In The Universe. -
vrooomie at 00:27 AM on 2 September 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
DSL@24:......*ow*. But, you're right; this t(h)read is becoming kinda like a carcass....;) TC: I aims ta please! I'm a big believer in humor, both remaining in a tough topic, and being injected into ones that are bordering on war--not that this one was--but I am glad you got the joke! -
geoffchambers at 00:16 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
John Cook Are you sure the questionnaire you posted at SkS in 2011 is the one to the current Lewandowsky paper? Lewandowsky says the fieldwork was carried out between August and October 2010. The six sites where articles have been found all posted between the 28th and the 30th August 2010. There’s a similar questionnaire from UWA (though with different structure and different questions) being discussed at http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/07/29/climate-change-questionnaire-of-univ-of-western-australia/ and another one (or possibly the same one) was mentioned by junkscience. Clearly, several different surveys have been or are being conducted. (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] References to stolen intellectual property snipped. -
philipm at 23:40 PM on 1 September 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
It's interesting to line this development up against natural influences. While we are higher in the solar cycle than in 2007, the current solar cycle is still one of the lowest on record. 2007 was a cooling year in the ENSO cycle, whereas this year we're had a bit of El Niño phase of the cycle, but not a strong one. There isn't anything to suggest from this that any natural influence should be causing unusual warming. Next time the solar cycle goes back to its more usual maximum or next time we have a strong El Niño 1998-style, we could see a very rapid loss of sea ice extent. What we are seeing this time is most likely the effect of long-term loss of multi-season ice depth that doesn't in the short term decrease sea ice extent, but results in needing a year that's not exceptionally above the norm to drive back ice area a long way, once the multi-season ice has thinned enough. GISS shows northern hemisphere summer is one of the warmest on record, but not the warmest. -
curiousd at 22:04 PM on 1 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
Question: The"denial machine" now seems to be reduced to trying to prove the C.S. is small. I do not believe it is small, I think there is now good experimental evidence that the fast feedback CS is 3 deg C. BUT say the CS WAS at the lowest possible end, which we might take as 1.5 deg C. Why would this be an excuse for doing nothing about AGW? Does anyone have any crystal ball into denier logic that would help me out here? -
Rob Painting at 21:23 PM on 1 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
JoeT - Sorry, I don't know the details of how these two models differ. What I can tell you is that the 19 model ensemble used in Seager (2011), linked to above, did not find a change over the Sahel that was statistically significant. -
John Brookes at 18:35 PM on 1 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
Yes, no one really predicted it. Maybe we weren't being "alarmist" enough? -
Estiben at 18:33 PM on 1 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
garethman @42 It's great that you are taking these steps. Every little bit helps, but I'm sure you realize that not everyone can do the same. I suppose if everyone became a back-to-the-lander, our emissions would drop to near zero, but there isn't enough arable land to go around. Minifarms are not as efficient, for one thing, and then there is the problem of distribution. If everyone is a farmer, who is going to deliver food to where it can't be grown? Who is going to make new vaccines? I'm afraid we can't return to primitive agriculture without a massive loss of population. -
Estiben at 18:23 PM on 1 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Tom @39, I googled "Antarctic Heat Island" and nearly choked. You should post an absurdity factor warning. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:47 PM on 1 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
shoyemore "Means the re-freezing will be almost as interesting as the melting." Never a truer word spoken. This years refreeze pattern is next years melt pattern. If refreeze starts later because the water is still warmer, their is less time for that ice to thicken over the winter and next year it melts out even quicker, more open water, more warming of the water more ... you get the idea. heijdensejan Yep, PIOMas really is following that exponential curve. However I think there will be some aspects of the Gompertz curve will happen as well. Exponential trend till it is 'virtually ice free' then leveling out like the gompertz curve before the last remnant goes. This isn't some weird math's. Its just that the last remnant is the ice along the north shore of Greenland & Ellesmere island. Weather patterns aren't usually conducive to that being cleared out easily and that is where the last remnant of the thicker ice remains. So it might hang around a bit. What is far more likely is that over the next 1-3 years the rest of the Arctic melts out substantially and earlier and that old ice is the last bastion. And importantly, that would include an ice-free North Pole. Not the final, truely ice free point. But perhaps a far more visceral 'tipping point'. The Year Santa Drowned. Although nobody wants the Arctic collapse to be happening, it might be our best hope in the short term to wake the world up. -
Troy_CA at 16:41 PM on 1 September 2012CO2 lags temperature
David (and others), for a specific response to Humlum et al., 2012, I put up a quick demo of why their method will create misleading results: https://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/comment-on-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature/ -
geoffchambers at 16:17 PM on 1 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
JohnHartz #8 Thank you. I have already done the search. It’s not there. Neither is it on the Wayback machine, who took snapshots of SkS every week during the relevant period. (-Snip-) Lewandowsky mentions SkS in his list of eight “pro-science” ( -Snip-) sites used, and when challenged, said that perhaps Cook had deleted the link. There is no suggestion of anything underhand here. The link from the participating blogs to the commercial organisation who set up the survey was deleted once the fieldwork period was over. My interest in finding the link here was in reading the comments of bloggers. It is puzzling that Sceptical Science did NOT take part, given the great interest that Cook shows in Lewandowsky’s work. (-Snip-) ( -Snip-) (-Snip-) So it seems that Lewandowsky was mistaken when he said that SkS took part in the survey, and we’re left with the puzzle of how he obtained 1100+ responses from just six (possibly seven) blogs, given the sparse and largely negative comments from the couple of dozen bloggers who discussed the survey on the blogs concerned. ( -Snip- ).Response:[John Cook] Skeptical Science did link to the Lewandowsky survey back in
20112010 but now when I search the archives for the link, it's no longer there so the link must've been taken down once the survey was over.[DB] References to stolen intellectual property, statements about religions & ideology and general off-topic hypothesizing snipped.
Prev 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 Next
