Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 Next
Comments 55851 to 55900:
-
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to at least commercial standards of accuracy, and then reject any information from a commercial source because it was not peer reviewed is astonishing.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! -
dana1981 at 01:42 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
vroomie @3 - thanks. I should note that Albatross tried to comment on Pielke's blog but was unable to sign in, so he emailed his comment to me, which I then posted. So my first comment is my own, the next is from Albatross. I didn't bother to make the distinction since I agreed with his comments, but I don't want to take credit for his efforts. As for Pielke, I think 'lukewarmer' is a good description. He doesn't dispute basic climate science, but seems determined to believe/argue that the consequences won't be terribly bad. At least that's my impression - I don't read his writings very often. I wouldn't call him unique though, for example Lomborg seems to argue from a similar position. I can't think of any 'lukewarmer' climate scientists off the top of my head. -
shoyemore at 00:01 AM on 9 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
vroomie, An excellent example of Pielke Jnr's incoherence, attacking a climate scientist's exposition of the facts in order to "protect the integrity of the IPCC". It is a bit like calling your own character witnesses liars. Maybe the guy is a natural contrarian and won't join any club that would have him as a member. As far as I can see, the deniers don't want him, so he seeks to join their club. -
jake7351 at 22:49 PM on 8 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Has anyone ever seen Pielke Jr give any kind of substantial criticism of sceptics (links please)? I searched his blog for the most blatant of serial misinformers (Monckton, Plimer) and came up with nothing. -
vrooomie at 22:16 PM on 8 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Reading Pielke's blog, referenced in the main essay, was...*illuminating*. The lengths these folks go to deny science and justify their ever-increasingly unteneable 'fake skeptic' positions leave me gobsmacked; take for instance this quote, from Pielke. "But let's be clear about one thing. Christy was cherrypicked by Republicans to deliver a certain message that they find convenient. The IPCC does not have that luxury. Field was representing climate science, Christy his personal views of the science." "But you'll pardon me if I have decided that the integrity of the IPCC is far more important than whether I agree with an individual scientist or not." Um...sure, OK. Thanks to both Albatross and dana1981, for the excelent article, and especially dana, who tried to refute Pielke on Pielke's blog. Sigh..... -
Ari Jokimäki at 21:24 PM on 8 August 2012New research from last week 31/2012
It's my pleasure, thank you. :) -
Ari Jokimäki at 21:24 PM on 8 August 2012New research from last week 27-30
It's my pleasure, thank you. :) -
Kevin C at 21:21 PM on 8 August 2012The GLOBAL global warming signal
KR: Excellent question. I've done it using the NCEP data as a basis, and masking the map series down to match the coverage of the corresponding month from either Hadley dataset. (Before 1965 I loop the temperatures from years 1965-1975.) This is a harder and more realistic challenge than a random holdout, because the correlation structure means that extrapolation over larger distances is harder than smaller distances. I can then compare the interpolated reconstruction with the value from the complete data. Results: 1. Once the Antarctic stations become available, the Krig, nn1200km and spline methods all give much lower noise and bias than ignoring the missing cells. 2. Going back before the Antarctic stations are available, the spline approach becomes noisy. Unlike the others, it does not degrade gracefully as coverage reduces. It tends to produce extremes a long way from the nearest station, where the other methods are both conservative and revert to the global mean if you get too far from the nearest station. 3. Going back to 1880 the performance of the Krig and nn1200km reconstructions degrade gracefully with time. At 1880 they don't provide much benefit, but they never make things worse either. Kriging is formally more correct, and the effective area of influence is determined by the data itself, but in practice there is not much to choose. Thus I think the GISTEMP results are already pretty close to optimal (given the SST data they are using). Caerbannog's observation that you can get a similar result to GISS by just (for land data) using the CRU method and 20 degree boxes highlights this result - almost any global reconstruction method gives the same answer. This kind of test, where you try and find tough challenges which can potentially falsify your approach, is precisely the thing which differentiates real science from blog science. It goes back to Popper: A theory which has survived multiple severe tests is a fitter theory than one which has yet to face a severe test. Applying severe tests like this is the kind of thing I need to do to make this publishable. -
Martin Lack at 20:24 PM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Dana@10 Thanks for the response. Albatross@15 Unlike McIntyre (who has disavowed detailed involvement), Christy has self-identified with Watts. This is why his credibility should be heading the same way as President Assad and shares in Standard Chartered... -
shoyemore at 18:59 PM on 8 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Albatross, excellent post. Pielke Jnr seems a phenomenon. As far as I can evaluate his position, he accepts mainstream climate science, but believes that exposing the full facts to the public is counterproductive. Hence he tends to downplay (or malign) witnesses like Field who are not afraid to talk about what the science is actually saying. If we give him credit for having some sort of principled position, this seems to justify him ending up siding with questionable characters like McIntyre. Peilke Jnr actually believes this will help positive action on climate change in the long run. As you say, we hardly have time for this. Here Pielke and McIntyre are just shifting ground: ... climate contrarians appear to be retreating more and more away from the "it's not happening" and "it's not us" myths, toward the "it's not bad" fallback position. Would Skeptical Science do a longer post on Pielke Jnr and his unique position, sometimes known as "lukewarmer"? -
Albatross at 15:47 PM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Dana @16, You are probably right. I was doing my best to be as fair as possible to Christy. However, as you note, no matter how one looks at this it reflects incredibly poorly on Christy and those who invited him to testify. It is really troubling that "skeptics" and contrarians like Christy are permitted to grossly and repeatedly mislead Congress without any consequence whatsoever. Policy makers need the best science to make informed decisions, not seriously flawed manuscripts such as the one prepared by Watts, Christy and McIntyre. -
Albatross at 15:38 PM on 8 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
To keep the post as short of possible we could not include all of the examples of Pielke Jr. misleading people. It is highly hypocritical of Pielke Jr. to accuse others of misrepresenting the IPCC, when he did just that in his attack on Field. In fact, we know of at least one example in which Roger Pielke Jr. (to use his own words) "completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings" when attacking Field. Ignoring Pielke's strawman argument in his point 5 for now, we note that Pielke does not provide the whole sentence when he quotes from p. 269 of SREX. Pielke states: "What the IPCC actually says (p. 269 PDF): "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses" But that is not all that the IPCC says on page 269, there is a second half of that sentence that Pielke Jr. ignores. The whole sentence reads as follows (my highlights): "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses (Pielke Jr. and Downton, 2000; Downton et al., 2005; Barredo, 2009; Hilker et al., 2009), although some studies did find recent increases in flood losses related in part to changes in intense rainfall events (Fengqing et al., 2005; Chang et al., 2009)" So to recap. It is in fact Roger Pielke Junior who misrepresented the IPCC when attempting to discredit Field. We thus have yet another example of Pielke Jr. misrepresenting the facts. Given Pielke's history and this latest shameful example, journalists should perhaps think twice as to whether or not Roger Pielke Jr's can be trusted. This file is simply too important to have the games played by Pielke Jr. (and others of his ilk) promulgated by the media when seeking (false) balance. -
dana1981 at 15:32 PM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Albatross - I can't imagine that Christy would be referencing the results of a paper on which he's listed as co-author without being intimately aware of the details. In fact I suspect that Christy pressured Watts to release the paper before it was ready because he was afraid Muller would be testifying in the same hearing and he wanted the Watts results to undermine Muller's testimony. That's just speculation on my part, but either way, if you're presenting the results of a paper on which you're co-author to Congress, you'd darn well better be very familiar with how those results were generated. Though I guess it's true, it wouldn't reflect as poorly on Christy if he were ignorant about the flaws in the paper whose results he presented to Congress. In that case he was just being grossly irresponsible as opposed to being both inept and irresponsible. -
Albatross at 14:55 PM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
What I find troubling and puzzling about Christy being listed as a co-author on the awful manuscript is that Christy was once the state climatologist for Alabama. So Christy should be very familiar with time observation bias (TOB) issue and the importance of adjusting for it. Now to be charitable to Christy (and the best possible scenario for him ) it may be that Watts included him as a co-author without first consulting with Christy. If someone has not already asked him if this was the case, they need to and Christy needs to clarify the degree of his involvement in analyzing the data and preparing the manuscript. Regardless, Christy promoting a seriously flawed and grossly misleading manuscript before Congress is inexcusable. -
Tom Curtis at 13:49 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
A final comment on the dispersion of sulfates. Fiedler et al, 2009 discuss the observation of a SO2 pollution plume just of the west coast of Ireland. That pollution plume came from China. In fact, it was not the only plume they found at that location. They found another, lower plume from North America as well, as shown in this diagram:
You will notice the Chinese plume has approximately half the concentration North American Plume. Its greater altitude and thickness, however, suggests it would have greater than half the cooling effect of the North American plume. This suggests that it would make an appreciable impact on the atmospheric energy balance at that time and location.
Below is a modeled distribution of Chinese SO2 based on known weather patterns at the time of observation. Again, notice that the concentration of SO2 in the plume is only around 40% of that over China, again signifying an appreciable impact on the energy balance:
Despite the high concentration of the plume half way around the world, occurrences of plumes from China at that location would be sporadic, whereas the plume over China itself would be constant throughout the year. As a result, averaged over the year, concentrations over China would be large compared to those over the North Atlantic. But that in no way justifies Krisbaum's rather silly claims, and it certainly does not justify his supposition that SO2 concentrations in Greenland ice cores are a poor proxy of SO2 emissions over Europe and North America.
As we have seen, there is no question that SO2 plumes can be carried more than half way around the world - let alone half way across the world's narrowest ocean to Greenland.
-
krisbaum at 13:39 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
[finish the work you have claimed for yourself in comments 81 and 94 above.] I just did and you deleted them.Moderator Response: [DB] Comments deleted were due to inflammatory/ad hominem comments and sloganeering. You continually focus on newspaper accounts of what Pachauri is reputed to have said. You continue to fail to show (from 81) where the IPCC has stated that it only bases its work on peer-reviewed literature. It is clear you posture. -
krisbaum at 13:07 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
(-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] This has gone on long enough. As has been noted several times already, finish the work you have claimed for yourself in comments 81 and 94 above. You will be allowed no further podium to waste the time of others here until that work is completed.
Argumentative and sloganeering snipped.
-
krisbaum at 13:03 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
DSL; My original assertion about aerosols was to do with a lack of records pertaining to their levels - hence the high amount of high uncertainty in their values. [Anthropogenic] Aerosols are concentrated at their source and depending on their type (eg. Sulphates or Black Carbon etc) - they travel varied distances from their source but a geo-spacial representation of their concentrations in the atmosphere is required to estimate their impact on climate change.Moderator Response:[DB] Actually, your original assertion about aerosols was made here and was this:
"Has anybody actually investigated further, for example the findings on Aerosols and why the IPCC believe what the range of aersol forcing is thats stated in their 4AR?"
You did not make the assertion about aerosols that you claim until 4 ½ hours later, here.
-
DSL at 12:40 PM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
krisbaum, I'm not going to immediately discard your claim. I do, however, want to see some evidence. What you claim is not common knowledge. Here's a study that casts doubt on what you say just from the abstract. The study measures the 72 hour trajectory of a cloud of SO2 that extends 1600 meters from the surface. If the mass of SO2 travels for 72 hours and only goes 10km, that means it is traveling at the extremely fast rate of about 139 meters per hour. Possible, but not probable. This study worries about an oil refinery being built 30km away from the Taj Mahal and what the emissions will do to the structure. Why did they even perform the study? It's common knowledge that human-sourced aerosols only travel 10km. These were just two of the first few on google scholar. I can do more of your work for you if you require it. -
krisbaum at 10:46 AM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
'Greenland aerosol measurements tell you nothing, it is fairly common knowledge that aerosols do not travel far from their source typically 10km or so. You need localised measurements to get any kind of global pattern.' It is fairly obvious from recent discussions that my quotation above still applies, everbody is correct in disputing '10km' - as an arbitrary number like this, argue you may but the point still stands that (-Snip-).Moderator Response:[DB] It is very obvious from recent discussions that your quotation above is still invalid. The intercontinental reach & dispersion of aerosols has been amply demonstrated.
Either finish your homework from comments 81 and 94 above or cede those points by declaring your position invalid.
Off-topic diversion snipped.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:30 AM on 8 August 2012IPCC is alarmist
DSL does have a point. Krisbaum, the figure of 10km is not only arbitrary, it's also ludicrous and baseless. None of the papers you have referred to can allow to support this number. It is obvious you made it up on the moment to serve your argument. I see nothing in your various arguments that deseves any consideration and I'm done wasting my time on them. -
Tom Curtis at 08:46 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
sauerj @11, Roy Spencer, Christy's collaborator on the UAH satellite data explicitly disavows any fossil fuel, or even private sector funding of his research. Presumably that means that Christy receives no private sector funding for any of their joint research as well. With regard to his projects in which he does not collaborate with Spencer I have no information. As DB has pointed out, however, this is a non-issue. The question is the quality of Christy's science, not the nature of his funding. As it stands, his testimony to Congress was very bad science. -
Tom Curtis at 08:39 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
MarkR @5, Christy and Spencer use a 1981-2010 baseline to calculate anomalies for their lower troposphere (T2LT) product. The switch to a very short 1979-1983 baseline is, therefore, anomalous (forgive the pun). As that baseline is not his standard practice, and for very good reason, its use requires explanation. As, apparently, the use of that baseline significantly distorts the comparison between T2LT records and model projections, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it was a deliberate cherry pick. -
CBDunkerson at 08:14 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Sauerj, like most of the 'skeptics' Christy is ideologically opposed to all forms of government intervention in the environment. Government action is always bad... therefor any problem which would require government action must not really be a problem. In almost all cases it is a massive ideological blind-spot rather than any consciously chosen reason. -
sauerj at 08:06 AM on 8 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Off Subject: Are there known financial connections between the FF industry and UAH (or its alumni) that is motivating Mr. Christy's tactics? Or is this a simple case of "saving-face" pride (due to Mr. Christy taking a hard stance years ago, too soon)? ... Snip if this is 'out of line'.Moderator Response: [DB] General speculations into motivations are generally frowned upon. Specifics get snipped. This is a science-based site and Mr. Christy's science is very much fair game. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:45 AM on 8 August 2012Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction
Perhaps. I know it had to do with the "triple point of water" fiasco thread.
Prev 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 Next
