Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 Next
Comments 55551 to 55600:
-
ajki at 02:24 AM on 10 August 2012It's the sun
Isn't this stove/pot thing [WUWT] pure and debunked Spencerism [SkS]? -
Bernard J. at 02:06 AM on 10 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
Sarah is entitled to her opinion. But that is all it is, there is nothing remotely scientific about this post.
Really? Perhaps you can demonstrate the validity of your claim and show your calculations for the energy required to sequester carbon in reduced form, compared and contrasted with the energy obtained by combustion of solid carbon. You must be aware of some thermodynamic loophole that has escaped most of the world's physical chemists, if you attach no scientific credibility to Sarah's discussion. For gaseous and liquid carbon, you might show similar calculations. And where you intend that carbon be sequestered as CO2 rather than as solid carbon, perhaps you will demonstrate numerically how successfully humans will return CO2 to subsurface reservoirs, both in terms of total energy return on energy expenditure and of centuries/millenia scales of effective reservoir integrity. The only way that carbon sequestration can work effectively in the short time period required is if humans have aburdly abundant renewable energy available: there is no way to drive effective sequestration with carbon-sourced energy. Without such spare energy sequestration is nothing like "an option" - the laws of thermodynamics don't permit cheating. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:06 AM on 10 August 2012It's the sun
"So that in the experiment I can be reasonably sure that the heating water has to be caused by the heating plate (energy source). Now simple applied logic demands that you need to allow for that as well if you talk about the sun and the earth."
What makes you think that this hasn't already been allowed for? Seriously? We see a decline in TSI. There exists an energy imbalance at the TOA, causing the system to warm. We know that the documented rise in CO2 is responsible for that TOA energy imbalance. The energy budget accounting for the various air/water/land components of the system closely sums to what we see at the TOA. Where's the problem? -
Gustafsson at 01:54 AM on 10 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
I just registered, just to see that Mike had said most of what i wanted to say, but i will elaborate a bit. I usually enjoy reading SkS articles because they are well written and based on research but this one is mainly an opinion and the final conclusion isn't much more than wishful thinking. "Of these, storage of CO2 in deep geological formations is considered to be the most technologically feasible (IEA). Since the carbon would be stored as CO2, not as fixed carbon, these reservoirs (and CO2 pipelines) will require continuous monitoring for leaks." So, the most technically feasible way to store CO2, that could help reduce CO2 in the atmosphere and be one of the many combined ways we reach a carbon neutral future as fast as possible is dismissed because it would require monitoring? Really? Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is in my opinion not a goal, but a bridging technology. We have coal, natural gas and oil power plants now and as much as we want a non-fossil alternative, changing the entire system is not going to happen over night. While the system is changing we can use CCS to mitigate the damage of our current system by retro-fitting old plants or even burning bio-fuels in CCS-plants to reduce CO2 concentrations in the apmosphere. jimb @ 6 - CCS has never been about making fossile coal into a "renewable" as is shown in the picture. It is not recycling. Think of it more like nuclear waste management: We can either spread the nuclear waste in the atmosphere or we can bury it in the ground where it wont hurt us as much. The later alternative is more expensive but as it wont hurt society as much it is still more cost efficient, which is why we have regulations. The only difference is that nobody argues with the scientists when they say nuclear waste is dangerous. -
Slioch at 01:40 AM on 10 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
Another method of sequestrating carbon not mentioned here is via the weathering of silicate rocks, particularly those of an ultrabasic composition, that is, those containing a relatively high percentage of iron, magnesium, calcium and other non-alkali metals. This occurs naturally, of course, but at a rate far too slow to counteract significantly the spike in atmospheric CO2 caused by human actions. However, ultrabasic rocks such as serpentinites, if finely ground and spread upon the ground will weather rapidly and moreover and are said to assist plant growth and possibly carbon storage in soils. Clearly, there will be substantial energy costs during the mining, crushing, transportation and spreading procedures, but the end result may be enhanced fertility, increased crop yields and a modest contribution to carbon sequestration. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any quantitative studies into this possibility. -
jimb at 01:39 AM on 10 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
Mike @ 5- I understood the cartoon to not be focussed on the final storage of the carbon dioxide that is released from the burning of coal, but that the process, like a perpetual motion machine, can never be 100% efficient. The efficiency will be determined by (i) the percentage of carbon dioxide captured and (ii) the amount of carbon dioxide created by the various processes and equipment used to capture and store the gas. -
h-j-m at 01:37 AM on 10 August 2012It's the sun
Sorry, but both of you seemed to miss the point of my remarks. I was not appealing at some thermal flywheel effect nor to the energy balance of earth. I was simply appealing to the logic of the argument heading this thread. What was the described experiment for? Just compare it with sun-earth interaction. There is an energy source constant or declining in energy intensity ( sun - heating plate) and an energy receiver ( earth - pot of water) constantly heating up. The difference is that in my experiment I can make sure to exclude any other possible influence. So that in the experiment I can be reasonably sure that the heating water has to be caused by the heating plate (energy source). Now simple applied logic demands that you need to allow for that as well if you talk about the sun and the earth. In short I doubt that logic of the given argument is sound. -
Mike3267 at 00:57 AM on 10 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
Sarah is entitled to her opinion. But that is all it is, there is nothing remotely scientific about this post. A lot CH4 is stored safely under ground. CO2 can be too. Whether this will prove cost effective remains to be seen. Clearly, IMO, this is a long shot. Efficiency, conservation and non fossil fuel energy sources are our best bets, but we should keep all options open. -
chriskoz at 00:17 AM on 10 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
Very nice cartoon, Sarah. It gave me a healthy dose of laugh, especially the guy catching CO2 molecules like butterflies. That picture is doubling the informative value of all the words of the article. -
Tom Curtis at 00:10 AM on 10 August 2012It's the sun
Bernard J. @1007, I believe h-j-m is actually suggesting that the Outgoing Lonwwave Radiation (OLR) was much less than the incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun (TSI) circa 1950 such that a small reduction in TSI still leaves TSI > OLR and the Earth with a lack of balance between incoming and outgoing energy that would warm the Earth. This notion is refuted by the very small changes in TSI over the course of the century which are insufficient to generate the large initial energy imbalance on which his implicit argument depends. Despite my disagreement on interpretation of his argument, I think he would still do well to examine the different warming rate between the two hemispheres. -
Bernard J. at 23:59 PM on 9 August 2012It's the sun
h-j-m. You're appealing to what is often colloquially referred to as the thermal flywheel effect. However, with a little cerebral activity you should be able to grasp why the sort of disparity between solar output and climatic response is not as temporally shifted as you seem to think. There are several quite separate avenues that demonstrate this but sticking with just one for now, you might like to think what happens to the two hemispheres of the planet in its annual orbit around the sun. Is that sufficient nudging? -
h-j-m at 23:39 PM on 9 August 2012It's the sun
For some years now at this topic I still see the same argument stated as refutation of the claim that the sun might play a significant role. Now, I have serious problems accepting the argument. I will try to explain with a simple experiment. I take an electric stove and a pot of water and thermometers to measure the temperature of the heating plate and the water. Now I place the pot of water on the heating plate and turn the stove to full power. Measurements show the temperature at the heating plate rising fast and water temperature rising slowly. After 5 minutes I turn the stove down to half power and in response I can measure the temperature of the heating plate first stalling and the dropping significantly. But the temperature of the water keeps rising and even more rising faster. If I follow the argument given here then the rising water temperature in my experiment can not be explained by the fact that the thermal energy transmitted from the heating plate, though dropping, still exceeds the capacity of the pot with water of emitting energy. Somehow I have severe doubts about that. -
funglestrumpet at 22:40 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
I assume that most sks subscribers have as a goal that of combating climate change. The chances of achieving that goal are bound to be hindered by any obfuscation such as that exposed herein. While it might be that the views these people express are genuinely held, it is difficult to believe that when one studies the tactics employed, as so clearly exposed by this excellent article. One wonders if Professor Pielke Jr would take this article’s exposure of his tactics so lightly as to breeze in to the comments section, say “Hello!” and then breeze out again after making little or no contribution to an article that questions his ethics if he were to consider that the article would form part of a body of evidence against him in the event of there being a commission or tribunal to apportion blame when climate change starts to really bite. When the events of this year will be seen as ‘rosy’ in comparison. When the public cotten on to how much they have been duped and demand punishment of those concernded. To this end, can I suggest that instead of having just a few persons selected for exposure, as in Christy’s Crocs (top left of the page), we simply have a link entitled: EVIDENCE AGAINST leading to a separate thread for each specific misinformation by each person considered to have deliberately mis-informed the public generally and the policy makers in particular. That thread should open for all to see, but only the named person and sks authors allowed to comment to the point where the evidence stands or falls or, I suppose, an ‘agree to differ’ point is reached. The comments policy would be different and I am not in a position to be specific, but I think one policy should be that deliberate denial of having said something when the evidence is clear that they have indeed said such a thing should lead to automatic termination with a ‘PROVEN’ note as the closing comment (no prizes for guessing which British peer I have in mind). There should be one thread for each transgression with the date and place of transgression recorded, unless it is repeated, when all that would be needed is a note to that effect with the date and place noted. Out of courtesy, we should inform the person concerned of the fact that the evidence is being gathered and offer them the opportunity to defend their position. I assume that not all misinformation is deliberate even if we think it is and there has to the opportunity for the individual to effectively cancel it by posting AGREED as their final comment on it. While it might seem like a lot of work, in truth there are only so many myths and they have all been debunked by reference to the known science, so the sks comment would in the main be a link to the myth-busting section. Who knows, the comments in response might assist this site in refining its myth-busting explanations, providing links to the sources, something of an omission currently. If one considers the times people continue to push mis-information, despite being in the mis-informers (should that be ‘myth-informers’?) hall of fame on this site, one wonders just how effective the current policy is.Moderator Response: [DB] Note that references to "tribunals" are considered inflammatory on this website. -
Daniel Bailey at 21:37 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
I think that most who have actually taken the time to study the literature and to learn for themselves the science would be uncomfortable resting the fate of the planet in the hands of those who obviously have not. Diversion over; let us please return to the OP of this thread, Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation. -
kflaux at 21:27 PM on 9 August 2012New research from last week 31/2012
About a line of the "Simulating the effects of methane disaster scenario" paper abstract has been omitted. Starting right after the mention of the "1000-fold methane increase". -
Paul D at 21:02 PM on 9 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
There was also research into burying trees (mainly trunks) in the ground to sequester carbon. Don't know if it has been taken any further. It requires the right conditions in the ground to work correctly. -
Tom Curtis at 19:56 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Dale @25, as you are uncomfortable with data people whose financial well being depends on high quality data about the frequency of natural disasters, perhaps you will accept data from people whose profession is the scientific study of disaster frequency, specifically, CRED, the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. There data base shows changes in frequency of natural disasters, defined as natural events killing at least 10 people, or adversely affecting at least 100 is as follows:
(Natural Disasters in the World {No. which Occurred (1900 to 1999)})
Here is the same data from a different source, only this time plotting the number of earthquake related disasters separately as a rough indication of the effects of increased reporting and population density on the data:
(Emmanuelle Bournay, UNEP/GRID-Arendal)
I believe this also answers your question about whether the 1980s were years of unusually low disaster rates.
-
Martin Lack at 19:47 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Dale @27 said: "I'm not looking for information on what could happen, but graphs and information on what HAS happened." With the greatest of respect, Dale, that is exactly what Dr James McCarthy presented to the Senate Committee; and which Pielke and McIntyre have willfully sought to bury beneath an avalanche of economic rationalism (a.k.a. obfuscation). -
CBDunkerson at 18:31 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Dale, while your reflexive dismissal of all evidence presented to you isn't encouraging, further discussions (with graphs) on extreme weather events can be found in; Hurricanes and global warming More wind, bigger waves Unsettled science Extreme rainfall If you wish to discuss any of the topics in these threads please do so on the linked pages rather than here. -
skywatcher at 18:21 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Basically, I'm not looking for information on what could happen, but graphs and information on what HAS happened.
Perhaps then you need to read the sections labelled "Observed Changes" within Section 3.3 of the SREX report? There's one for each of the major extreme type (e.g. temperature, precipitation). There are also sections labelled "Causes of observed changes". Neither deal with "Projected changes and uncertainties", which are separate. Always good to read the right sections of reports and papers when you're looking for information! -
Dale at 17:37 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Skywatcher: Thanks for pointing me in that direction, though having a very quick flick the SREX appears to concentrate on what may happen. That's not what I'm looking for. Though if past observations are in that document (a 5-minute flick didn't locate any though) then I apologise for dismissing the SREX. Basically, I'm not looking for information on what could happen, but graphs and information on what HAS happened. -
skywatcher at 17:10 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Dale, perhaps you should start your reading (assuming you've read DB's links) at the IPCC SREX report, linked in the OP. Some of the key statements are already highlighted above:"It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level."
It may have fewer easy graphs than you'd like, but it broadly supports the graph from Munich Re, and is based on a great deal more literature. Section 3 of the full report is your friend. Did you really think the fate of the planet would be left to insurance companies? -
Dale at 16:14 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Whether true or not, I am uncomfortable resting the fate of the planet on an insurance company. Back to my question though, whilst that graph shows from 1980, is there something showing long-term trend? 30 years is hardly indicative, and does not show "normal" conditions pre-GHG temp spike (which really starts around the time of the graph). I suppose what I'm asking is, where is the data/graph to compare what's considered "normal" to what's considered "human-influenced"? For to see a change, you need to know a change from what. How do we know the 80's and 90's weren't quiet years for disasters? -
Bernard J. at 15:57 PM on 9 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
At last, an explicit explanation of the thermodynamic silliness that surrounds the notion that anthropogenic sequestration can balance unhindered fossil fuel combustion. I have lost count of how many times I've tried to explain to people that if we could put carbon into the ground at less financial and energetic cost than we obtain from diggin it up and burning it, we could save even more money and energy by not sequestering it in the first place and by reusing the nacently and magically-reduced carbon. As Sarah so aptly notes, it's a belief akin to perpetual motion to imagine that reduced carbon can be sequestered as efficiently as we oxidise it. -
Bernard J. at 15:43 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Sorry, call me sceptical (ha) but a graph from only 1980 compiled by an insurance company is not really science.
"[H]a" indeed. I'm not sure that "sceptical" is the word. No-one said that Munich Re is conducting science. However there is power in their data, and sufficient that it indicates trends in different types of natural disaster. I can't see where anyone's actually inferred numerical levels of probability from these data but parsimony, and the weight of other evidence physically tied to the phenomena, imply which interpretation is mostly likely. When one remains unconvinced counter to the strength of significant parsimonious indication, one is likely exercising something other than scepticism, whether rational or otherwise. -
Tom Curtis at 15:28 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Dale @22, fake "skeptics" are fond of saying that various climate scientists would be jailed if they made the claims they did on commercial documents. They are of course wrong, for the various claims were actually accurate - but that is beside the point here. What is directly to the point is that we now see how fake skeptics deal with claims actually made on commercial documents and for which the executives of Munich Re could indeed be jailed if they faked the figures above. Rates of disasters have direct bearing on the commercial viability of Munich Re, and therefore incorrect information about those rates would distort the share price of Munich Re. So there is no question as to the legal liability of Munich Re executives if the above graph was faked. The hypocrisy involved in those who (falsely) criticize climate scientists for not adhering to at least commercial standards of accuracy, and then reject any information from a commercial source because it was not peer reviewed is astonishing. In any event, you are mistaken. The scientists who maintain the Munich Re natural disaster database have published on their methods and findings in the peer reviewed literature. -
Dale at 15:00 PM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger @21 Sorry, call me sceptical (ha) but a graph from only 1980 compiled by an insurance company is not really science. I've seen the ACE graph and also tornado graphs showing no change over time (except an increase in tiny tornadoes due to increased detection technology). But is there anything really out there showing observed occurrences increasing? From what I understand (and read from the linked articles above) it's still really a "may/will" topic. The argument just isn't convincing enough IMO.Moderator Response:[DB] If you wish to contest the Munich Re data, they are covered by this SkS post here.
Denying things because they don't fit preconceived conclusions is not really science.
-
atcook27 at 13:13 PM on 9 August 2012Sequestering carbon nature's way: in coal beds
If you were to ask a 10 year old to solve the climate change problem the not so bright ones would come up with CCS technology. "I know we'll capture the CO2 from the smoke stacks of power stations, compress it to a high pressure liquid, pipe it 100's of kilometers and pump it underground. Where it will never, ever, ever leak out!" The stuff of fairy tails. -
vrooomie at 13:09 PM on 9 August 2012‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
Colorado, as of 8/8/12: 55 days of 90F+ temps (2nd longest run in CO history), and August is still not half over. It's the hottest July ~ever~ here, and we're down by more than half for yearly precip, which in a good year *averages* 28 cm. The deniers/fake skeptics are beginning to sweat, methinks...;) Though, it's the first time I've ever seen *weeds* die because of drought. -
Roger D at 11:02 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Dale - I searched but didn't find it, but there was such a graph compiled by or for the re-insurance company Munich Re that was the topic of an SkS article in the not too distant past.Moderator Response:[DB] A copy can be found here:
-
Dale at 10:22 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Just a question, but there's all this stuff about climate change increasing extreme weather events/intensity. Being a "graph" person, is there any graph of observations (for example from 1950-2012) showing an increase in extreme weather events/intensity? Or is everything so far "it may/will"? -
skywatcher at 10:07 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
I would like to ask Roger Pielke Jr one simple question: In the light of evidence presented above that you have often blurred the distinction between extreme events and extreme losses, and being critically mindful of the distinction between the two ... Do you agree with the IPCC SREX report's assessment of the increase in extremes of temperature and precipitation? -
vrooomie at 09:35 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Sphaerica@17: Though I tend to agree with you, I would hope that any snark, be it from one of 'the learneds,' or from the peanut gallery, wouldn't/won't make Roger actually not want to come back, and cogently discuss the science. I'd like to think (fallible a human as am I) that SkS is better than the ad hom climate blogs. Now, if he never comes back... Say no more...;) -
VictorVenema at 07:56 AM on 9 August 2012Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
Next to the time of observation bias post, I now wrote an introduction to statistical homogenisation with lots of pictures. Some more ammunition for when Watts revised his manuscript, which is taking a pleasant long time. I hope that some background information can make the (upcoming) discussions more productive. -
shoyemore at 07:53 AM on 9 August 2012Extreme heat becoming more likely under climate change
John Neilson-Gammon also has problems with the "20 times more likely" estimate, but JNG's comments are unlikely to make it onto WUWT. He reckons the "20 times" is a fudge factor, and "distinctly more probable" would be a more scientific way of saying it. If he is right, the press release exaggerated the original paper somewhat, though one would presume the authors approved the press release. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/07/twenty-times-more-likely-not-the-local-media-2/ -
michael sweet at 07:10 AM on 9 August 2012‘It’s not looking good for corn’ - new video from Peter Sinclair
The United States National Climate Data Center released their monthly report for the Continental United States (CONUS)(the global report is issued around the 17th of the month). July 2012 is the hottest month ever measured in the CONUS. Anyone who says the 1930's or 50's were hotter is wrong. The last 12 months are the hottest 12 months ever measured. Forecast: continuing hot and dry. The amount of the US rated as in drought is still lower than the peak of the 30's and 50's droughts, but drought continues to expand. Hopefully they will get some rain before it kills all the trees. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:03 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
I think it speaks volumes that Roger Pielke sees issues of science as matters of preference, belief and faith rather than fact and truth. Apparently, some think people are entitled to their own facts (and truths). Not in the real world, unfortunately. This point of view -- that climate science is a malleable one of opinion and nuanced, subjective judgment -- is a lynchpin of the denial position. This post clearly lays out facts, Mr. Pielke was given an open and civilized forum in which to engage, and when it was determined that he could not simply steer the conversation into a careening, aimless tour of all things imagined or mis-perceived, he beat a hasty retreat. Say no more. -
John Hartz at 06:45 AM on 9 August 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
The beat (and the heat) goes on… “The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.” Source: State of the Climate - National Overview - July 2012, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center -
CBDunkerson at 06:09 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Dr. Pielke, if you specifically wish to talk about 'extreme event attribution' I'd suggest joining one of these recent SKS discussions on the subject; An American Heatwave Linking Weird Weather to Arctic Warming Global warming causing heat fatalities Extreme heat becoming more likely -
Rob Painting at 06:05 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
RogerPielkeJr - "I accept that you believe that CF's testimony faithfully represented the science of the IPCC SREX report, whereas I don't. Let us agree to disagree, having both presented our respective cases" Facts are not a matter of opinion. This post highlights examples where you have very clearly misrepresented Christopher Field's testimony. -
dvaytw at 05:41 AM on 9 August 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
// Vay you should read more carefully... // Yeah sorry I read about Mass from this USAToday article: NASA scientist ties heat waves to global warming (apologies if I messed that hyperlink up; this is my first time posting on this site) Thanks for the feedback guys. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:36 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Will increased reservoir storage and irrigation in the US through the 20th century have an impact on drought frequency and intensity over the same period? I know the Colorado basin has approximately 60billion m3 of reservoir storage (4 times the annual flow of the Colorado river). 80-90% of water use in the basin is for irrigation. The point I am trying to make is would historic droughts have been as bad if the same water resources were available. -
RogerPielkeJr at 03:35 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-12-dana1861 OK, your blog, your rules. As there has already been 99 comments on my blog on this specific topic, I don't think there is much more to discuss (though comments there remain open, of course). I accept that you believe that CF's testimony faithfully represented the science of the IPCC SREX report, whereas I don't. Let us agree to disagree, having both presented our respective cases. Parsing that issue further won't be a good use of my time. That said, should you wish to open up a discussion of the science of extreme event attribution, or for that matter any of the other subjects deemed off topic for this thread, please do let me know, as I'd be happy to participate. With that I'll respect your wishes and leave this thread to those wishing to discuss Field and Christy. Thanks!Moderator Response: [DB] As a point of clarification, this thread is about Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation, not Field and Christy. -
dana1981 at 03:21 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Dr. Pielke, the topic of this post specifically pertains to Christy's and Field's testimony before Congress, and your statements with regards to that testimony. Any other discussion would be off-topic and a violation of the site's stated and consistently-enforced Comments Policy, as has been noted. Skeptical Science welcomes any input you have into that conversation, as long as such input stays on topic (and, as with all commenters, within the constraints of the Comments Policy). Note to other commenters - let's please try not to overwhelm Pielke Jr. with too many comments, which became a problem for Pielke Sr. when he commented on SkS. I'll be acting as an SkS representative in the comments if Pielke Jr. would like to discuss the issues at hand with the SkS team. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:05 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
On helpful (hopefully) interjection: Skeptical Science is comprised of quite literally thousands of blog posts covering all facets of climate science, from the denial to debunking to exposition on the science to solutions. No threads are dead or closed (but perhaps some should be, like the everlasting gobstopper 2nd Law/Waste Heat threads). Dormant, waiting for activity, yes. But all are open for business. Therefore, if the OP of a current thread does not lend itself to proper discussion of an item, the Search function in the Upper Left of every page is an able resource in finding more appropriate threads to continue discussions on. Lastly, the link to this site's Comments Policy is adjacent to the Post a Comment box on every thread. The vast majority of participants find it an easy bar to adhere to. With that said, I will recuse myself from the discussion.Moderator Response:[DB] Obviously, "On" should read "One"
I hate this laptop keyboard.
-
vrooomie at 03:05 AM on 9 August 2012Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
Yooper@8: I'd be interested in reading up on that 'fiasco,' given I like to be armed to wrestle with whatever nutty 'facts' get tossed at me. I looked on WUWT but didn't find anything right off...TIA! -
vrooomie at 02:13 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
FYI, to all: It's not just being picky, it's protecting another Netizen: my nick has *three* Os in it, not just two. The *other* vroomie out there, will be much apreciative of the attention to that detail...;) -
vrooomie at 02:10 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger, allow me to welcome you here: Though I am not by any means an expert in this field, I am a trained geologist and as such, have a good background in the basics. I also do this not in an official position as an SkS expert. I will look forward to your participation in what I feel is one of the most rational, reality-based climate change blogs today, regarding this complex subject. It should be noted that, AFAIK, Anthony watts has not deigned to show his 'face' here, which is all the sadder, for it would be...fun....to engage him in the type of civil discussions that are the norm, here on SkS. I look forward to your inputs and thoughts regarding this topic. -
Tristan at 02:08 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
"The Climate Fix will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far." Will it just. -
RogerPielkeJr at 01:48 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Hello Skeptical Science, as time and interest permits I'd be happy to engage in a discussion with you, and I appreciate your interest in my research and writings. There are a number of issues that I have focused on in my work (much of it peer-reviewed research), including the question of the identification of a human-caused climate change signal in the record of disaster losses (for a wide range of phenomena), the role of science in policy and politics, geoengineering and the broader debate over mitigation/energy policy. That is a lot, but I'm happy to follow your interests. I would ask however that the conversation begin with at least a basic understanding of my views and research. Here is a starter kit for those interested: 1. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/06/climate_of_failure?page=full 2. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-fix.html 3. (more than you want) http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WtqpmdIAAAAJ With that, I appreciate the opportunity and will check in a bit later.Moderator Response: [RH] Thanks for coming by, Roger. We would also hope that you take a moment to read through our comments policy. We try to keep a tight ship here with regards to commenting. Staying close to the topic of the article is very important. We've very glad you stopped in, and you should be getting responses very soon. Thx!
Prev 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 Next
