Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 Next
Comments 56451 to 56500:
-
dana1981 at 14:32 PM on 20 July 2012Esper Millennial Cooling in Context
Generally true Composer. The climate contrarian spin from the paper was "Roman and Medieval times were as warm as present", which aside from being rather irrelevant (as discussed in the post), is not something this paper is capable of showing, except for temps specifically in northern Scandanavia. -
Composer99 at 12:52 PM on 20 July 2012Esper Millennial Cooling in Context
As far as I can tell, the Earth has been cooling slowly since the end of the Holocene climatic optimum, with some ups and downs along the way... until the Industrial Revolution. This paper does not seem to alter this impression in any meaningful way. -
TS.Davis at 11:29 AM on 20 July 2012The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
oh yes, Thank You! -
TS.Davis at 11:29 AM on 20 July 2012The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
Need a Spanish translator? My wife is a psychology student but previously translated to judges in court. Her English and Spanish are superb. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:38 AM on 20 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Gee, wonder if I can get the CSLD Fund to comp me for my time lost on this thread? (after all, time is money) It is transparently obvious, the inherently fact-impoverished position of denial. Witness the arduous contortions evident in this thread alone needed to both manufacture debate where none exists and to then resuscitate an argument that was dead before it arrived (DBA). -
Daniel Bailey at 10:31 AM on 20 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
So Chip says:"Correct – the satellite-based, balloon-based, and thermometer-based global temperature records show no warming whatsoever over the past decade. Claims that the Earth’s temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate are clearly false – nothing could be further from reality."
Hmmm, he needs to get his pal Michaels back on the agenda-train. Cue Michaels in 3, 2, 1...:"You've all seen articles say that global warming stopped in 1998. Well, with all due respect, that's being a little bit unfair to the data...it was a huge El Niño year, and the sun was very active in 1998...make an argument that you can get killed on, and you will kill us [skeptics] all..if you lose credibility on this issue, you lose the issue."
-Patrick Michaels, 6 September 2009 [Source] You heard rightly, folks. Michaels is calling Game-Over on his pal Chip. -
skywatcher at 10:07 AM on 20 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
A brief example of Knappenberger vs Knappenberger from KR's DC link. First:"Correct – the satellite-based, balloon-based, and thermometer-based global temperature records show no warming whatsoever over the past decade. Claims that the Earth’s temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate are clearly false – nothing could be further from reality."
And Chip's comment a little later..."For some reason, most folks in this thread seem to think that I don’t think the world has been, is, and will continue to warm. I am not sure where this notion comes from."
Maybe the notion comes from your published words, Chip. "The world is warming"; "no warming whatsoever". Which is it? The whole purpose of Easterling and Wehner's 2009 GRL article was to falsify claims such as the second sentence of the first statement by Michaels and Knappenberger above. Claims that the Earth’s temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate ... are entirely true! The 2000s do not contradict that, they actually support it strongly! See Tamino's excellent recent post - the 2000s actually lead to an increase in the overall warming trend, when added to the trends from 1980-2000. The 1980-2000 trend is smaller than the 1980-2011 trend! It doesn't give you much confidence in Michaels and Knappenberger's ability to summarise or interpret material published by other authors, as exemplified in the OP. -
Andy Skuce at 07:36 AM on 20 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
To return to the original subject of the post, here is another article on ATI's latest FOIshing trip, in Texas. Climate science attack group turns sights on Texas professors Andrew Dessler is the target, Katharine Hayhoe was hit last year. I note the irony that ATI is a "charitable" organisation, allowing their funders a tax break so that they can squander taxpayers' money by wasting the time of climate scientists, by forcing them to comply with vexatious FOI requests. In the article, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund attorney Jeff Ruch is quoted as saying: "Before they were going after interactions between individual scientists. This is basically a spying operation to see who are you talking to, but presumably the idea is the same: to find material that is potential[ly] of use in discrediting a scientist." -
Tom Curtis at 07:30 AM on 20 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
dubious @190, I am growing tired of this endless discussion of a trivial issue. When I say trivial, I think it is absolutely absurd that McIntyre made a blog post on the issue, and even more so that having done so he got every fact of legal interpretation wrong. But, given that it is so tiresome, I will be dropping out of any further discussion of the issue, after making one point. You said,"Effectively, there is nothing that McIntyre could have said to Dr Karoly which would not fall into that definition. "I think you're wrong" would be a "threat of legal action" on that definition. "Please tell me where I have promulgated misinformation" would pass the same test. "I would be grateful if you would support your allegation" would also pass the test. There would be almost no step McIntyre could have taken, if he believed Dr Karoly had been unprofessional in posting an inaccurate review, which would not have passed Tom Curtis' test for being a "threat of legal action". Similarly any contact with Dr Karoly asking that he meet basic norms of professional behaviour to withdraw an inaccurate allegation and apologise would have passed Dr Karoly's definition ("a request to the author of the material, requesting that they withdraw it and apologise"). Almost the only way of NOT meeting Dr Karoly's definition would have been to not contact him at all."
That claim is simply absurd. All that McIntyre needed to do so that the letter did not have the form of a concerns notice under Australian law was to drop the phrase "defamatory". By excluding that word, the letter no longer makes a claim of defamation and therefore no-longer clearly presents claims of defamation. Further, McIntyre's claim that his only intention was to persuade Karoly to "behave as a professional" is dubious. A professional, and certainly a scholar is concerned to b truthful. Simply alleging that Karoly's claims where untruthful would have been sufficient if McIntyre's purpose had only been to persuade Karoly to desist from allegedly unprofessional conduct. Given that, the only point in including the term "defamatory" would appear to be to make Karoly (at a minimu) reflect on his legal situation - and if that was the intent it was definitely an implicit threat. On McIntyre's say-so I will accept that his letter was poorly drafted for his stated intent. But as drafted, it was legally a "concerns notice" and as such represented a threat of legal action. -
Neven at 07:03 AM on 20 July 2012The Mid-Wales floods of June 2012: a taste of things to come?
Great post, John. My wife and I considered moving to Wales about a year ago, but I feared that big ocean west of Wales and what climate change might make it do. So we're still living south of the heart of Europe, where I fear the Mediterranean drought. ;-) I wink, but it's serious. -
JohnMashey at 06:31 AM on 20 July 2012Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
Since Wegman is back in the news, here and here: a) Plagiarism was the simplest problem. b) But only a few pages of the 91-page Wegman Report avoided problems. The science was often wrong and even the statistics was wrong c) And then there was the misrepresentation, where they plagiarized Bradley, but changed conclusions they didn't like. -
dana1981 at 06:23 AM on 20 July 2012Vision Prize Results
You mean the 'no consensus' myth, threadShredder? I was actually thinking about that this morning. I'll try to remember to update it this weekend. -
John Mason at 05:36 AM on 20 July 2012The Mid-Wales floods of June 2012: a taste of things to come?
Indeed, Gareth. Some respite though is on the cards as things have finally stirred into motion: high pressure moves east over us this weekend and following a few unsettled days early next week it reloads from the west. I can hear the sound of a thousand fishing-rods being dusted - but will the mackerel still be around? It has been a difficult summer in the garden: today I harvested the shallots before they rotted in the ground and in 95% of cases all foliage was died-off to ground-level. Many small ones, but I'll replant them next March for green onions late April through to July. But it just makes me wonder how I should plan for coming years, as a grower. I never realised that resilience-thinking was needed in grow-yer-own, but it seems that it is! -
threadShredder at 03:19 AM on 20 July 2012Vision Prize Results
You should update the myth on this topic with the results of this study. -
Bernard J. at 02:47 AM on 20 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
So I asked four colleagues to parse McIntyre's letter and tell me if they thought it was a threat of legal action. Based on:"It has come to my attention that you have made the following untrue and defamatory statement about me..." "...the failure of these panels to explicitly identify errors speaks strongly against your allegation of promulgating “misinformation”." "I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology."
three of them said that they would take it as a threat, or at least forward it to Legal. The last one, who had familiarity with McIntyre, said he doubted that McIntyre would "have the balls" (because it would initiate 'official' scrutiny of McIntyre's errors), but if it had been someone else he would have asked for Legal's opinion. That aside, I find the subsequent paragraph:It is evident that the error had not been discovered by the authors or by peer reviewers at the time that Climate Audit raised the issue of screening procedure in Gergis et al on May 31, 2012 here, a discussion that quickly identified the error. I do not believe that you identified the error independently of the discussion at Climate Audit and accordingly it is my opinion that your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement.
as an extraordinary example of hubris. Not only does McIntyre have no evidence to support his allegation, but he somehow turns the use of Karoly's own data into an act of plagiarism by Karoly. My colleague's opinion of McIntyre's legal bravado might be dim, but it takes some big ones to demand that he be credited when someone else has simply scrutinised their own work. Oh, and anyone who relies on the Wegman Report, so ably mascerated by John Mashey and Deep Climate, as a defense of competence needs to start doing some serious reading.Moderator Response: [Albatross] Bernard J we cross posted, so I have to give your reference to Gergis et al. a pass. Everyone, please move any responses to BernardJ's comments about Gergis et al. to the suggested thread. As for Wegman, that discussion can be carried out here. -
John Hartz at 02:43 AM on 20 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Phillipe: I completely agree with your assessment. Thank you for posting it. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:31 AM on 20 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
This thread has effectively been hijacked and degenerated into a "look, squirrel" type of distraction. It is unfortunately typical, and indicative of the difficulty of conducting any kind of useful debate when faced with certain methods. Whether or not Karoly or McIntyre said this or that, the reality is that scientists in a given field are under such pressure that CSLDF became necessary. I find it regrettable that there are multiple threads active right now with vastly more interesting stuff than this, yet this ends up being the most active. McIntyre is quite good at using language. His website is full of half veiled allegations, innuendo and so forth. That's the recent stuff. A few years ago, the messages were much crude and clear. Commenters at his site have had no problem attributing the worst of motives to scientists whose work they hardly understand. Meanwhile, humans are being a geological force of unprecedented speed, unearthing -in a century and a half- billions of tons of carbon that took millions of years to sequester. And this is what we talk about. Truly concerning. -
dubious at 02:23 AM on 20 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I should add that there is a marked difference between McIntyre's behaviour, when he finds something he posted is inaccurate, and many people here. As soon as McIntyre heard the suggestion that the book review had been moved behind a paywall, he posted that news (giving full credit to Dr Karoly for the new information). When people later doubted that it had in fact been moved behind a paywall, he confirmed it had, posting "the article is presently in the $6 current issue." How many people here have corrected their posts suggesting that Dr Karoly took the article down on the advice of his lawyers? Tom Curtis posted earlier "the more reasonable inference is that Karoly was instructed to take them down because his universities (sic) legal department did not want the expense of defending them." doug_bostrom posted the more cautious: "Karoly may have asked ATR (sic) to remove the piece, or ATR (sic) itself found the comments generated by the piece to be a distracting waste of time to moderate. I see from the archived copy that the article had already attracted some ire; perhaps ATR (sic) didn't like the noise it encountered. "Point is, we don't know what happened. It would be helpful if we did but in the meantime let's not make the mistake of substituting with our imaginations what actually happened." McIntyre corrected himself immediately. In contrast Dr Karoly has left it completely open and mysterious what role McIntyre's ClimateAudit blog played in uncovering the errors which led to the withdrawal of the Gergis article. Would Dr Karoly like to shed light on that?Moderator Response: [Albatross] I am now removing myself from this thread to moderate. As Philippe noted, this three dis being driven off topic. And the attempt by dubious to further debate Gergis when it is not even mentioned in the OP is part of that problem. So while McIntyre's original posts did contain factual errors that needed to be corrected, there is nothing concerning Karoly or Gergis et al. that news to be corrected in this OP. Everyone, please post comments on this thread. Any subsequent posts containing discussion of, or speculation about Gergis et al., or attempts to divert attention away from the main post will be deleted. Thank you. -
dubious at 02:05 AM on 20 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Daniel Bailey @184: I really don't think I was "distort(ing) his expression of his opinion" given that: 1) his words were just 4 comments up and 2) I quoted the strongest part of what he actually said - the part which came closest to supporting his "threat of legal action" claim. Let's look at what people have actually said here. Tom Curtis @185 asks: "Was it reasonable for Karoly, who did not know McIntyre's intentions, to conclude that the probability of his being sued by McIntyre was greater given that he had received the letter than the probability of his being sued if he had not received the letter?" and argues: "even though it did not threaten legal action (ie, contain the words, 'and if you do not comply I will sue' or the equivalent)." it was (reasonable to conclude the probability was greater) and "ergo" that "it was not a false claim" (that this was a "threat of legal action"). While I'm sure Dr Karoly appreciates Tom Curtis's support, I doubt that even he actually believes that line of argument. Effectively, there is nothing that McIntyre could have said to Dr Karoly which would not fall into that definition. "I think you're wrong" would be a "threat of legal action" on that definition. "Please tell me where I have promulgated misinformation" would pass the same test. "I would be grateful if you would support your allegation" would also pass the test. There would be almost no step McIntyre could have taken, if he believed Dr Karoly had been unprofessional in posting an inaccurate review, which would not have passed Tom Curtis' test for being a "threat of legal action". Similarly any contact with Dr Karoly asking that he meet basic norms of professional behaviour to withdraw an inaccurate allegation and apologise would have passed Dr Karoly's definition ("a request to the author of the material, requesting that they withdraw it and apologise"). Almost the only way of NOT meeting Dr Karoly's definition would have been to not contact him at all. Or to go back to an alternative to the example I suggested earlier. Suppose your landlord tells you that he is not renewing your lease. Suppose a "first part of a legal action" to evict you from the house you rent is to tell you that the landlord does not want to renew the lease. The landlord doesn't quote any aspect of tenancy law, or refer to lawyers, or the law at all, or consequences if you refuse to vacate the property. There is no threat. There is simply the statement of fact, that the landlord does not want to renew the lease. I don't consider that it would be reasonable to say "I've just received a threat of legal action" even though that is a likely consequence of failing to leave the house. I would consider it an exaggeration to say "I've had a threat of legal action" or even "I've had a threat of eviction" because - quite evidently - there has been no threat. As I said, even Dr Karoly cannot bring himself (and I think most/all the commenters here) cannot bring themselves to actually repeat the claim (and it is to their credit that they can't) that Dr Karoly had "just received a threat of legal action". -
Alexandre at 01:13 AM on 20 July 2012Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
Ok, in that discussion I mentioned on my comment #119 I replaced this assertion: "Troposphere is warming while stratosphere is cooling. This too is consistent only with an enhanced greenhouse efect" by this: "The vertical profile of the atmospheric warming is consistent with the human-enhanced greenhouse effect." It seems to be more accurate in light of Tom's explanation. I still have the nagging feeling that that would deserve a correction in the Guide (maybe in a future updated version?). As one of the translators, I'm very proud of it and I'd like it to be spotless. -
KR at 23:25 PM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
More of Michaels and Knappenberger's work, in this case textual rather than with graphs: Deep Climate has a review of their "appropriate and on the mark" (???) coverage of Easterling and Wehner, 2009 and Solomon et al 2010, with Michaels and Knappenberger claiming they were mainstream climate science indicating "no warming whatsoever over the past decade". The Michaels and Knappenberger articles were shown to be seriously cherry-picked and quote-mined, taking text out of context to remove critical conclusions from those works. This included not quoting statements that decadal trends were just not statistically significant (see The Escalator). This is not "...disagree(ment) as to what the main message was that the authors conveyed in their papers", it is distortion and misrepresentation. In my opinion, this is an ongoing pattern - paper after paper, time and again, cherry-picked, quote mined, and graphically edited to remove conclusions that contradict Michaels and Knappenbergers talking points. Actions that (again, IMO) goes well beyond the usual realm of a "advocacy science consulting firm", as Michaels and Knappenbergers group describes itself, to behaviors that I would find difficult to properly describe within the SkS comments policy... -
garethman at 19:46 PM on 19 July 2012The Mid-Wales floods of June 2012: a taste of things to come?
Great post. It does not make life much better living on Ynys Mon where we are starting to feel like a worn out sponge, but at least we know the dynamics behinds this awful weather, and it underlines the issue that climate change is not all about heat waves and drought. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:44 PM on 19 July 2012New research special - methane papers 2010-2011
@pauls sorry, hope Mike finds the caveat worthwhile then! -
pauls at 19:12 PM on 19 July 2012New research special - methane papers 2010-2011
Dikran Marsupial - I was responding to Mike and his question about US methane emissions. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:49 PM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
tlitb1: I would offer to modify [thread evolution metaphor] to a quantum wave function collapse. The wave functions’ existence could appear more important than any disappointing single reality it may collapse to once observed ;) Hah! That's great, much more fun and usefully descriptive than a sagging balloon! -
tlitb1 at 15:27 PM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug_bostrom at 18:09 PM on 18 July, 2012 I have taken your advice and posted a query at the CSDLF contacts page along the lines suggesting that they should update their page with more up to date information about their current work and inform us about supported scientists other than Michael Mann. My curiosity about the status of a fund for supporting victims is based on my feeling that the funds other unintended effect could outweigh its primary overt purposes i.e. could the fund’s actual existence reach a stage where it outweighs it actual current usefulness? Once you realise this as a possibility (and I think it is possible for all such bodies) then I think it is fair to ask about its continuing status, and suggesting that making it clear that it is working for more than one single person on one issue is a start towards that. The appearance of a dynamic functioning entity involved in continuing work means, like a shark, it is moving and keeping itself alive. The hyper fine debate over whether David Karoly really thought he was about to be legally victimised being run in parallel on this page makes me think that the appearance of being threatened can sometimes be more important than the actuality. Doug Bostrom has used the metaphor of a balloon inflating, deflating and reflating to track this saga; I would offer to modify it to a quantum wave function collapse. The wave functions’ existence could appear more important than any disappointing single reality it may collapse to once observed ;) -
Doug Bostrom at 12:19 PM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Unfortunately we're still missing a little bit of information, causing us to begin vigorously attempting to reinflate the squashed balloon of conjecture left us after David's visit. Did David take advice from a lawyer? I'll add a couple of strokes to the speculation pump and say that his description leaves me thinking he didn't just guess or use wiki.answers to assess the situation. Maybe we'll actually learn what happened, again? I must say ABR's migration of the review behind a paywall because of high traffic left me both surprised and amused. I'd never have guessed that was the answer; hats off to value-add by the McIntyre groupies! Equally humorous was the long delay on this thread of comments before that matter was cleared up, long enough for some folks to go way out on a limb, too far in some cases. -
Tom Curtis at 10:50 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
dubious @183, there are two questions you need to ask. 1) Did McIntyre intend to commence legal action against Karoly if Karoly did not comply with his requests? 2) Was it reasonable for Karoly, who did not know McIntyre's intentions, to conclude that the probability of his being sued by McIntyre was greater given that he had received the letter than the probability of his being sued if he had not received the letter? On McIntyre's say so, the answer to (1) is no. But given that the letter had the form of a legal document used as a prelude to suing, the answer to (2) is clearly yes. Therefore the letter constituted a threat of legal action (ie, the answer to two was yes) even though it did not threaten legal action (ie, contain the words, " and if you do not comply I will sue" or the equivalent). The key point is that the claim in Karoly's first comment would have been true if the answer to either (1) or (2) was true. Ergo it was not a false claim. This is a very simple point that everybody gets when it is not inconvenient for them to do so. If I say that, " Were I on the beach, a tidal wave would be a threat to my safety" neither you nor McIntyre would argue that my sentence was false because tidal waves don't have intentions, and besides which the tidal wave has never communicated any intention to drown me. You would understand immediately what was said, because it is plain English. It follows further that you understand perfectly if I say that undersea earthquakes just off shore constitute a threat to the safety of people on the shore. In other words, they are a threat to safety, even if (as is normally the case) a tidal wave does not eventuate. In the exact same sense, the claim that Karoly "... received a threat of legal action" was true. If he had said, instead that McIntyre had threatened him with legal action, his claim would have been false. As it stands, however, it is not. Finally, as to not repeating the statement - repeating the true but minimally informative information in the original statement when Karoly had far more explicit information that McIntyre had no intention to sue would have been deceptive. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:38 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Dubious, in only quoting a portion of Karoly's expansive reply you do him further injustice. The full quote:"McIntyre’s email to me did not mention legal action. However, a first part of legal action on defamation in Australia is often to send a request to the author of the material, requesting that they withdraw it and apologise. Hence, I felt that it was a reasonable assumption that McIntyre was starting a course of legal action."
Emphasis to the pertinent omitted text added. Thus, you distort his expression of his opinion. That you yourself have a different opinion has no bearing on this sad chapter, as you are not the individual in question. The fake-skeptics, as is their wont, have again much much ado about nothing. A tempest in a teapot, if you will. Be appropriately dubious about their agenda, for they lead many astray. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:28 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
"I think our coverage of Gillett et al. was quite appropriate and on the mark."
So, the Serial Deletion of Data (construed to be) Inconvenient to one's agenda is "appropriate and on the mark"? Methinks thou hoisteth by thy own petard, sirrah. -
dubious at 10:17 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
It is good to get some clarity from Dr Karoly. Personally I don't consider that a "threat of legal action". Even Dr Karoly cannot bring himself to repeat that expression, saying "I felt that it was a reasonable assumption that McIntyre was starting a course of legal action." For example, if a policeman tells me to "move along" it might be true that a consequence of me not moving along is that he would arrest me and perhaps the penalty could be a fine or even prison. Asking someone to "move along" is the first step to arresting someone for failing to move along. That doesn't mean that the policeman has threatened me with arrest, or with a fine, or with prison. He has simply asked (or even told) me to "move along". Personally I wouldn't then tell people I had been threatened with all these things - to me that would be an exaggeration - but I can imagine that some people might do. -
maximo at 10:06 AM on 19 July 2012It's the sun
(-Snip-) ... (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Inflammatory snipped.
Sloganeering snipped.
-
skywatcher at 09:52 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
#182, I wonder if Gillett et al think the same about your coverage? I seriously doubt that. In the light of the observed instances of the work of others being changed in order to generate talking points, maybe I can offer some help. It is painfully evident that you and Pat Michaels seem to get the science wrong each time you talk about it! For some reason, it keeps happening even when this is pointed out to you. But that can be repaired with some learning :) Below are some resources, from which you could begin your climate education: John Mason's Two Centuries of Climate Science 10 indicators of a human fingerprint on climate A must-watch video from Richard Alley on why CO2 is the biggest control knob, really well worth an hour of your time. And that's all apart from all the evidence for those pesky signs of warming, such as observed worldwide glacier retreat, Arctic sea ice loss (on near-record levels again this year), shifting plant and animal habitats and increasing sea level rise. There are signs that weather extremes are increasing in a manner consistent with the observed enhanced hydrological cycle and a warming climate. And of course that big nasty, ocean acidification. You could pretend that all this isn't happening, but that wouldn't be very scientific. Or you could start with what the science actually says. Surely that's appealing to you, Chip? -
Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 19 July 2012It's the sun
maximo @995: First, the NASA video indicated that the extra energy in the thermosphere accumulated because of the solar storm dissipated in a few days. To dissipate that energy, the thermosphere had to radiate around 0.000002 W/m^2 (or less) over those few days. This has absolutely no bearing on how long it would take to dissipate the approximately 900 thousand times larger energy imbalance in the lower atmosphere due to anthropogenic effects, particularly as that energy imbalance is not a temporary (three day) storm, but an ongoing flux. Second, the graph you show only shows the density of three atmospheric gases, Molecular Oxygen (O2), Nitrogen (N2) and atomic Oxygen (O), along with the density of electrons. The atomic oxygen and electrons are formed by molecular oxygen being split by UV radiation, thereby absorbing the UV radiation. As can be seen, the relative densities of O2 and N2,ie, d(O2)/d(O2+N2) and likewise for N2, where d(x) is the density of x, are near constant in the mesosphere and below. Above the mesophere, the relative density of O2 + O, ie, d(O2 + 0)/d(O2 + O + N2), is also near constant and approximately equal to d(O2)/d(O2 + N2) in the mesosphere and below. In other words, what the graph shows is only that the relative density of O2 is reduced by the splitting of O2 into two oxygen ions by UV radiation. That has no bearing on the densities of CO2 and NO2 which are typically not split by UV radiation. Finally, I grow tired of having a discussion where I have to deduce your implied point, made with irrelevant data, and largely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. There is a name for posting claims containing no clear argument and serving only to identify that you disagree (or agree) with the OP, or subsequent discussion. It is called sloganeering, and is contrary to forum rules. Unless you begin to clearly state not only what evidence you think you are bringing, but how it relates to the thread topic and ongoing discussion, I suggest your posts simply be deleted as being in violation of the comments policy. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:21 AM on 19 July 2012An American Heatwave: The United States Glimpses its Hot Future
Atomant, can you explain what cumulative heat is? In my case the average high has started to drop although average lows and records highs stay flat for a while:
(click for full size) -
dana1981 at 08:14 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
scaddenp @183 - leaving out the caveats and some very important data from the figures. 'Appropriate and on the mark' is not at all how I would describe that behavior. -
scaddenp at 08:06 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Um, leaving out the caveats so the work could be misconstrued is "appropriate and on the mark"? -
scaddenp at 08:00 AM on 19 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
You still beg the question of why would they waste time doing this rather than work on ModelE. It's excellent that you have code working yourself. Learn all you can, but will that advance science? Will anything you learn change your mind? Or given your posting history, will you simply start looking elsewhere for some other reason for inaction? -
Daniel Bailey at 07:44 AM on 19 July 2012It's the sun
maximo, rather than continuing to be cryptic, please concisely make whatever-it-is point you are trying (and failing) to make. Unless your goal is to waste the time of others. -
maximo at 07:03 AM on 19 July 2012It's the sun
Those observed facts from NASA show the atmosphere cools in a short period of time. What exactly is confusing or goes against what you believe?. Atmospheric gases are found high up into the atmosphere 600km and the greatest concentration of them is at 25km. The average density of gases in the atmosphere is log 10 cm -3. http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2010/07/15/thermosphere.jpg -
Chip Knappenberger at 06:46 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR, Thanks for the reminder of the Gillett thread. As pointed out on that thread, I think our coverage of Gillett et al. was quite appropriate and on the mark. -Chip -
KR at 05:32 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Chip Knappenberger - Additional discussion on Gillett can be found on this thread, on a discussion you took part in. The excerpt Michaels included was incomplete, and did not mention any of the authors caveats. Including only part of the work, while leaving out vital caveats from the authors, gives a deceptively misleading impression of the work. Much as removing data from the graphs does - a misrepresentation that cherry-picks support for your talking points while ignoring (or hiding) data that contradicts them. It's simply indefensible behavior. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:21 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I see no way whatsoever to interpret the misrepresentation of data outlined in the original post as anything other than an attempt to mislead and misdirect the reader. There is simply no other way to look at it. When a man is cheating on his wife, and tells her he's "working late," well, he is working, in a purely physical sense, and he is out late, so it's not really a lie, is it? He's just leaving out certain data to emphasize, simplify and clarify, or whatever, a particular point (i.e. one that lets him cheat on his wife while saving him the pain of an expensive divorce). Any arguments to the contrary by Michaels or allies must be viewed in the same light ("Trust me, I'm not lying this time."). -
Chip Knappenberger at 04:31 AM on 19 July 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
KR, I think you have lost sight of the original articles and our coverage of them. Our coverage of both the Gillett et al. article and the Schmittner et al. article included large excerpts from the papers’ abstracts (where the authors summarize their main results and conclusions). The figures we used illustrated those results. -Chip -
dana1981 at 03:50 AM on 19 July 2012Vision Prize Results
Good point about the "if and when" wording in Q3. I added a bit of text to the post noting that answers may have referred to TCR or ECS, depending on how they interpreted the question. I can't recall my answer, but I suspect I said 1-2°C based on the "if and when" wording. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:22 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Thank you for the follow up post, Dr Karoly. It is absurd that you had to write it, given your high standing in the science community and your reputation for utmost integrity. Another one in the eye for the pseudo-science blogs that make a habit of denigrating scientists - proving your original point. -
Andy Skuce at 02:05 AM on 19 July 2012Vision Prize Results
In many ways, the last question was a policy and economics question and was therefore beyond the expertise of most of the scientists involved It does show, though, that the scientists, without exception, do not believe in any existing technological silver bullet that will solve the climate crisis without government policy changes. That should at least give pause to the "rational optimists" out there who believe that we can muddle through this problem without involving government in a major way. -
Doug Bostrom at 01:49 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Thanks for piling some weighty information on the squishy balloon of speculation we'd built here, David. The balloon has gone quite flat, with a raspberry noise. -
Albatross at 00:57 AM on 19 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Dr. Karoly, Thank you for posting and for clarifying. Why am I not at all surprised that in trying to attack you again, Mr. McIntyre only succeeded in proving your point about him being amongst those who promulgate misinformation about climate scientists and their work. Additionally, for someone who claims to be an "auditor" is it laughable that Mr. McIntyre was unable to determine the true fate of your article. As I have noted before, you do not owe Mr. McIntyre an apology, in fact, he owes you an apology. I expect much squirming and hand waving and obfuscating and perhaps more misrepresentations to ensue at Mr. McIntyre's blog and by his apologists. Or maybe, just maybe, he will do the honourable thing and issue you a sincere and caveat free apology? I am not holding my breath though. To quote from a recent post here at SkS: "Nil Illegitimi Carborundum" [Don't let the bastards grind you down] -
Tristan at 00:47 AM on 19 July 2012Vision Prize Results
I think Q3 was a curveball. On top of the 'how much of the 550ppm warming was already realised by 2000 dilemma', TCR assumes the doubling is a result of a steady rate of CO2 increase (1%p.a.) over ~70 years. 275 - 550 will have taken longer than 70 years wont it? That'd imply that 275-550 would be slightly higher than TCR. Furthermore, TCR is not simply the surface temp anomaly relative to 70 years prior. This is only true if all other variables are held equal. The size of the anomaly vs -70yrs is heavily influenced by what level of sulfates we're still emitting by that point. If we've cleaned up our act, the 550ppm anomaly will be likely higher than the TCR. If we're still dirty, likely lower. I don't think many people would be able to give a numerical estimate to Q3 with much confidence, but 1-2C seems by far the most likely answer according to the current state of climate science.
Prev 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 Next
