Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 Next
Comments 58101 to 58150:
-
climatehawk1 at 01:17 AM on 3 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
You might want to consider changing the title of this post. It unintentionally suggests a purposeful agenda. "In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Gain" would actually be better. -
Justin at 01:05 AM on 3 June 2012Richard Alley's Air Force Ostrich
No, I am not just passing through. I read everything and take all your arguments very seriously and give them a great deal of thought - hence the delay in replying. Nothing I say is 'off pat' or a stock riposte to any claim made by AGW advocates. I will, in due course, try to present a cogent argument why I believe you, and all those who believe that the climate of the Earth is being affected by the burning of fossil fuel, are mistaken. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
Note: To be considered a cogent argument you must present evidence (based on the peer-reviewed, published literature) to support your assertions. Which you have not done.
-
Jim Eager at 23:54 PM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
I told you you would be wasting your time. Clyde isn't really answering your questions and he isn't allowing himself to be pinned down. When you do so he just switches to another argument (which is then deleted). He's not here to learn.Moderator Response: TC: Indeed. If Clyde does not very shortly answer some of the questions directed at him with answers that would actually substantiate his initial claims, or else acknowledge those initial claims to have been in error, or misinformed, this discussion will be in danger of violating the "no excessive repetition clause" of the comments policy. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:52 PM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Tom (16), Your point has some validity but is quite oversimplified. Unlike cap and trade, a carbon tax with a 100% domestic rebate (Hansen style) is not a "scheme to enrich the third world", on the contrary a tax on imports based on carbon intensity would reduce trade and help to impoverish the third world. That effect would only be partly offset by the lower fuel prices to third world. Also your dichotomy does not address the second world, rapidly industrializing countries, nor the economic disparities in regions within countries. For example I have already seen the consequences of fuel poverty in my part of rural Virginia such as fewer available jobs due to high commuting costs, indoor heating with diesel, abandoned farms and farm animals, etc. -
curiousd at 23:09 PM on 2 June 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Question: I was interested in the comments by Chris G, (number 23 above). Lets assume the three "summary statements" of Lindzen as quoted by Chris G are correct, but Lindzen merely omits a long time constant to equilibrium from his list of "possibilities" as quoted in post 23. Does this mean that one would expect a long term increase in temperature over pre-industrial levels of roughly (3/4) x 3 degrees, even if we could instantly stop burning fossil fuels? If so, does anyone have an estimate of how long this would take? -
chriskoz at 22:52 PM on 2 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Sceptical Wombat @2, My hopes are different. Fusion does not help at all other than satiate the narcisitc quench for energy. IMO such possibility's less realistic than the improvement and expansion of PV panels (or other technology capturing insolation enegry) so that they provide the baseload power. But that's besides. My hopes are: they don't keep increasing the energy imbalance (harnessing fusion would just add energy and possibly bigger disaster if it went uncontrolled) but start reversing it. CO2 already in gthe air creates the imbalance of, as Hansen says, 2 Hiroshima explosions/sec. And this is the imbalance that will continue to warm Antarctica. For example, I would dream (this article is about SF dreams isn't it?) they invent an industrial scale artificial photosynthesis, which would cool things by both drawing down CO2 and using sun's irradiance. -
Tom Curtis at 22:40 PM on 2 June 2012CO2 was higher in the past
curiousd @53, across a wide range of CO2 concentrations, including all those that have been experienced on Earth in the last 600,000 years or are projected under anthropogenic emissions, doubling CO2 results in a 2-4 degree increase in temperature if we ignore slow feedbacks such as melting of ice sheets. The IPCC best estimate for that figure is 3 degrees C. -
esjope at 22:06 PM on 2 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
It is quite worrying that reducing aerosol emissions seems to be happening before reducing GHG emissions. Therefore it looks like we’ll get both increasing GHG warming and reduced cooling due to cleaner emissions. -
chriskoz at 22:06 PM on 2 June 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
rpauli, This article is about Ian Plimer's misrepresentations. I don't see any misrepresentations about CO2 in his gish gallop discussed here, therefore your post is a double-violation of comments policy by being off topic and an unqualified statement. So I'm surprised Tom acted as a commenter rather than the admin on it. Just look around. You do not have to search far to find OnT thread: just 2 days back where your comment would have been perhaps excplicitly qualified and could draw interesting discussion...Moderator Response: TC: rpauli sort to correct what he thought was an error in a factual claim in the OP. Therefore his comment was on topic. As it happened, however, while his claim as factually correct, so was that in the original post as explained in my comment. -
curiousd at 20:24 PM on 2 June 2012CO2 was higher in the past
I want to make sure I have this right. In a statement such as, "Doubling the CO2 increases the temperature 3 degree C (eventually)" are we talking about doubling the CO2 from pre - industrial levels, doubling the CO2 from what we have now, or what? -
Sceptical Wombat at 18:45 PM on 2 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
On the face of it this means that, irrespective of what we do from here on, someone is probably going to have to do some serious geoengineering sometime in the next couple of centuries. Let's hope they crack controlled fusion before then. -
skywatcher at 15:13 PM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde #541: And with that, you show unequivocally that you really don't have an understanding of what a modeller does, and how a modeller goes about their work. In your #537, you exactly did not answer the specific questions, as you stated that a modeller is someone who can "write the code". Climate modellers around the world can "write the code"! That part is easy! The hard part is validating the code. But you have, as yet, given absolutely no explanation as to why all these people who can "write the code" cannot write and validate a good climate model. You additionally, as Bob says, give no explanation as to why checking/changing a model, having found a discrepancy with real-world data, is anything other than good science. I wonder if you can furnish us with a specific example of the occasions where adjustments "make the temp higher", because to me it sounds like you are confusing temperature reconstructions with climate models. You also are, by this statement indirectly attributing deliberate motivations to the approaches of scientists. Do you actually believe anybody wants temperature to be higher? In other respects, I concur entirely with what Bob says -
scaddenp at 12:43 PM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
I should also point out that some credible science that lets us off the hook, especially if means we will cool again, is really good news. It would also ensure that funding to my area of interest (petroleum basins with a side-dish of coal) is assured. Sadly, I fear the climate theory is right and we must do what is necessary to protect future generation by moving away from fossil fuel and developing new alternatives. -
scaddenp at 12:31 PM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
" I read well-argued material on both sides of the argument, and am still learning". So care to share (on the appropriate thread), the well-argued material (based on published science) againt current climate theory? -
Bob Loblaw at 11:49 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde @ 541: You say "That's part of my reason for not trusting models. Correct their code or adjust uncertainties." Are you really telling me that if I write a model, and I find that there are difference between it and measurements, and I either - figure out what my model is doing incorrectly, and make it better ("correct the code") - decide that this means that the uncertainties in my model are greater than I thought they were when I had the more limited (and less different) measurements to compare it to ("adjust uncertainties") ..that you would decide that I am a bad scientist and not to be trusted? What actions or characteristics would make you trust a scientist faced with data that differs from a model? -
Bob Loblaw at 11:41 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde: I'm not interested in going to Pielke's web site. Please provide a short description of what you think his "challenge" is, and I will discuss it with you here. ("Here" being subject to the assumption that it is relevant to this particular topic, which is the reliability of climate models. If it isn't, please pick another thread and point me to it.) -
Bob Loblaw at 11:36 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde @537: 1) You are still just providing a circular definition of "computer modeller". If you don't know what a circular definition is, look it up in the dictionary under "definition, circular". Or admit that you don't have a definition. 2) I'm not interested in analogies with heart surgeons or doctors. I want you to identify an actual, real "climate expert" that you know of, and explain why that person is not "knowledgeable about computer modeling, and how would this affect the work that they are doing" (to quote my original question). In other words, what is it you think that they are doing that is weakened by your belief that they have insufficient knowledge of "computer modelling"? Or admit that you don't actually have any specifics that you can use to back up your claim. 3) You said that I "don't know enough about computer modeling" in this comment here, where you said "Why is it that folks who critique AGW are dismissed if their not experts in climate science, but we should just accept a climate scientist's work on models when their not experts in computer modeling?" You've cast a pretty wide net with that general claim, and as the old saying goes "I resemble that remark". - I have studied climatology through a Physical Geography program (B.Sc. and Ph.D.). - I have taught climatology in a major Canadian research universty (in a Geography department) - I have published journal papers on my research in reputable scientific journals - my research included writing/coding and using "climate models" I think this is sufficient to be called a "climate expert" - I took one first year "computer science" course in the 1970s. - I stopped taking mathematics course after first year calculus and algebra. I think that makes me someone that you might think of as "not an expert in computer modelling" Yet, somehow I still wrote computer models of climate. Please, tell me what it is you think I need in my background to convince you that I actually knew what I was doing? Surely, with my weak "computer training", I must be an easy target for you to criticize. If you can't argue that I fit your broad, sweeping generalization, then who does? (Which takes us back to point 2.) Back up your claim, instead of just avoiding it. Or admit that you're wrong. -
Peter42 at 11:02 AM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To CBDunkerson @#18 (23.03 pm on 1 June 2012): My apologies for misunderstanding you. I think your argument here is very clear, and I agree about the factors you cite in reducing costs. Also, thanks for the comment about fossil fuel subsidies; I’ll investigate that further as I continue to look at whole of life costs for renewables. Incidentally, in comparing subsidies for fossil fuel and renewables (where you consider subsidies for the latter as negligible), do you mean total subsidy costs, or subsidy rates in proportion to energy produced? I’m not sure whether solar can ever become a sufficient primary energy source. I’d like that to be so, but at present I have my doubts. (At the risk of setting off another explosion of discussion, I’m also interested in what research has been done into energy from thorium.) To Sphaerica @#19 (00.08 am 2 June 2012): Thank you for your response. You make a number of points, and I thought it better if I address each in turn. 1. Thank you for your clarification that you agree that inexpensive energy is necessary for developing nations. However, you do not think that such energy should be provided through fossil fuels, because of your understanding of their impact on climate change. Have I understood you correctly on these points? 2. Further, you “don't see fossil fuels today being used to improve the lives of the poor... only to build factories so that the rich can continue to get consumer goods dirt cheap while increasing the ranks of the poor in their own countries”. I don’t disagree with you about some motives, and this sensitive and socially-aware statement reminds me of my shock as a primary school child, standing transfixed at dioramas in the Science Museum in London – little boys of my age, crouched in very low coal mining tunnels in Wales, hauling out bags of coal during the early years of the Industrial Revolution. However, as I moved beyond those younger years, I came to realise that the standard of living of today’s western world, is a progression from that often quite horrific genesis of fossil fuel energy sources. I don’t agree that “increasing the ranks of the poor” follows automatically. There is displacement, and that really can hurt, but human societies have only flourished when they have adapted, and used imagination and intelligence to improve their capacity to survive and thrive. I find that looking at our history gives me a wider perspective. 3. You further state “So the argument that the poor need cheap fossil fuels fails because it's not actually being done.” I don’t agree that an argument fails because it is not being executed; it is the execution that fails, and that’s a critical difference. Nor do I agree that cheap fossil fuels are not being delivered to developing nations. One has but to visit or study Asia and the Indian subcontinent, to observe the progressive reduction in poverty levels. Personally, I’m shocked at the presence of smoking rubbish dumps in Asian cities, with small children fossicking for whatever they can find for recycling – please don’t think I’m heartless – I’m just observing that hard grind of social progress. I just don’t think the answers are simple, and one’s arguments carry more weight when the complexity is recognised. 4. On opposing opinion, cognitive dissonance and Dunning-Kruger (sorry, had to look that up on Wikipedia, reproduced here “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes”) . . . all I can say is we’d really all have a problem moving ahead together, if we couldn’t objectively assess a different view to our own. In my trawling through climate change sites, I find reasoned arguments, impassioned pleas, and frequently disparaging language. The disparaging language is most unhelpful – its recipients for the most part stop listening immediately. Terms like “denier” and “alarmist” and of course far stronger ones, hinder proper discussion and persuasion on the important issues of AGW and CAGW. I think I’ve observed the Dunning-Kruger effect on both sides of the debate, but who am I to say? 5. The balance of your response addresses perceived motive. I don’t know the motives of the people to whom you are referring, as I just don’t know them. It appears you observe them collectively. Perhaps you and I are seen as part of a different collective, by those who disagree with CAGW. Previously I’ve given my view about separating motive from policy. Your final sentence shows how deeply you feel about the issue, and I recognise that; I used to think that people who couldn’t see what I saw, were being deliberately blind. When I came to recognise that they really did see things differently, my level of angst reduced substantially. To Sphaerica @#20 (00.16 am 2 June 2012): You pose very relevant questions, as you skewer me to the wall. I’ll respond in reverse order this time. 1. No, I wouldn’t count on the free market to be philanthropic – its history generally doesn’t support that. 2. Yes, I’d support fossil fuel taxes on 1st world nations for the sake of proven CAGW. I’m not sure how those taxes might best be provided to help developing nations; but for the interim while alternative energy sources are being developed and commissioned for them, they’ll certainly need fossil fuels, for both humanitarian and political reasons. By political, I’m thinking for example of China: the Chinese Government cannot risk stopping its modernising and urbanisation programme. It would be disastrous for millions were a war to break out over the needs for that imperative. Thank you again for your serious reflections. As I hope you have gathered, I’m trying to be balanced and pragmatic in my approach to the issues. To scaddenp @#21 (07.20 am 2 June 2012): Thanks for the info on subsidies – I think New Zealand is a great place – spent a lovely month cycling down the west coast of the South Island, some years back. Great people too. Concerning the science, I read well-argued material on both sides of the argument, and am still learning. I’m particularly interested in observational data. To adelady @#22 (08.31 am 2 June 2012): That’s a very good example you provide, and it’s very encouraging. I agree strongly with your point about developing energy resources in this way, pragmatically and constructively, especially at the local level. May I also refer you to my point 2 above in my response to Sphaerica? Thank you very much. -
Riduna at 10:31 AM on 2 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
Justin is right – provided we assume that the effects of global warming do not pertain and do not affect regional climate of the Himalayas. But it is nonsense to make such an assumption. As we all know, climate change now being experienced is occurring in the “blink of an eye” compared with geological events. While the latter obviously have an effect on Himalayan climate over a relatively long time period, the effects of climate change over decades is of far greater interest and immediacy for plant and animal species, particularly humans. In this carefully researched article, Mspelto and Daniel Bailey draw attention to and refute claims that all is well with Himalayan glaciers and the effects of their deterioration on the water supply needed for survival of a large human population. They rightly note that glaciers and their water yield is in decline and that the decline of both is accelerating. For most people in the region this poses no immediate problem. For others, that problem is already being experienced. North west India is the largest grain producing area of the sub-continent and has become increasingly dependent on unsustainable pumping of aquifers to maintain food production – particularly wheat. The prospect of on going and accelerating decline in the availability of water for this region and its population of over 600 million is no doubt of greater concern to them – and hopefully the Indian government – than is academic interest in the geological contribution to their future. -
Tom Curtis at 08:52 AM on 2 June 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
rpauli @3, the site to which you linked correctly shows the current CO2 concentration as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory. However, it is deep into the NH autumn, when CO2 levels rise substantially due primarily to the decay of deciduous leaves in the NH. Because that increase will be drawn down by the growth of new leaves in the spring, it is better to use the seasonally adjusted CO2 concentration of 393.41 (second last column in link). Of course, Mauna Loa is just one location on the surface of the Earth, so it is better still to use the seasonally adjusted global average CO2 concentration of 392.19 (last column in link). -
adelady at 08:31 AM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter, cheap FF often require expensive transmission set ups in places where there is none to start with. This is a classic example Such areas will be much better served by local, village and regional solar or wind in the first place. As their economic circumstances improve progressively linking up for more widespread load balancing becomes more viable. This is a much better option than waiting for years to see if the centralised system does or doesn't eventually get transmission lines to your village. Solar power starts producing the moment you plug it in. Rather than wait for any power at all, the only waiting might be for better storage technology to manage the power you've already got. -
Pete Wirfs at 08:01 AM on 2 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
"For about the first decade after human influences disappeared, the temperature rose very quickly" This reminds me of the study of atmospheric response to the grounding of USA passenger jet flights after 9/11. They were grounded for only 3 days and there were measurable differences. A study was published in 2004; http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/climatepapermar04.pdf And like most scientific studies, this one opened up a list of new questions. -
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter - I live in New Zealand. Subsidies became a dirty word in the 1980s,1990s and "level playing fields" and free trade were the rage with both left and right. "one must accept that not all who disagree are disingenuous" I was say that those who disagree are misinformed by the disingenuous and I will continue to think that unless you can show me some credible science published that says otherwise. -
scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde - I pointed you to RC over your 520 "paper". The reason why action is needed, even with uncertainties, is because low end of uncertainties are bad and high end is very very bad (uncertainty cuts both ways). Heard of the precautionary principle? Its great that you are interested enough in truth to come here rather than just haunting disinformation sites, but it appears you have some predetermined opinions which are really seriously uninformed. Please take time to look for the real answers (backed by published science) rather than just assuming things (like climate scientists arent competent modellers, that models cant explain past climate change etc). Take a good look over the skeptical argument list - top left button). -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:50 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde @ 541... "Most of the adjustments & corrections I've read about are always to make the temp higher." Um, I would suggest that's clearly not the case. In general, climate sensitivity estimates have come down slightly. Back in the 80's Hansen was estimating 4.2C for climate sensitivity (based on models and empirical research) and since then that's been adjusted down closer to 3C for 2XCO2. Even more recently research is showing that some of the very high estimations of CS are less likely thereby pushing the most likely CS down a smidge from that, to around 2.9-2.8C. -
Clyde at 05:08 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
The link to "Only In It For The Gold is old." It takes you to a page that redirects you to the site below. http://init.planet3.org/ -
Clyde at 05:04 AM on 2 June 2012Models are unreliable
skywatcher 540 They will have the ability to test that code, and to validate that code against expected results using synthetic data, as well as against real-world data. They can then correct their code or adjust the uncertainties accordingly. That's part of my reason for not trusting models. Correct their code or adjust uncertainties. If laws & regs are passed based on current models that will need adjustments & corrections then why pass said laws & regs? Most of the adjustments & corrections I've read about are always to make the temp higher. (-Snip-) I've answered your other questions in my 537 post. You feel their not "adequate." I noticed some jumped all over JoNova & nobody has refuted the papers in my 520 comment. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] Imputations of impropriety snipped.
Off-topic snipped.
Please construct comments in better compliance with the Comments Policy.
-
r.pauli at 04:43 AM on 2 June 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
CO2 is currently 396 ppm -- according to http://co2now.org/ -
Victor at 01:36 AM on 2 June 2012Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?
It seems to me that earth energy imbalance is not driven by forcings only but also by earth temperatures itselves. I.e. during episodes of enhanced oceanmixing, which makes deeper ocean warmer and upper ocean cooler, the latter lowers surface/atmosphere temperature reducing OLR. While insulation remains the same planetairy radiation budget becomes positief. This means that, also without any forcings, a change in vertikal heat distribution causes radiative imbalance as well. An 'internal forcing'. During the past hiatus decade, with less surface warming as before, there should be an extra heat accumulation above on that of the forcings. I'm wondering in what way this is incorporated in the listed studies and in the extrapolation from Hansen et al.(2005). Regarding fig 3, during hiatus decades TOA net radiation is roughly equal to common decades where you expect a significant higher imbalance due to (relatively) reduced OLR. Also note that TOA net imbalance of Meehl 2011 is much higher in both cases as mentioned elsewhere in this post. Or did I missed something? An explanation for the lack of internal imbalance is the presence of strong positieve feedbacks. But this means, in cases of the same (or even higher imbalance, shown by the errorbars in figure 3) that theoretically the planet could be at radiative equilibrium at any temperature. This makes the determination of ocean heat gain compared to models more complicated. Have we found here a third challange in solving model discrepancies? -
Composer99 at 01:34 AM on 2 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
Notwithstanding that this post & Justin's comment pertain to glaciology& geology rather than atmospheric physics, I believe the gist of this article at Science of Doom holds for Justin's comment. -
Tom Curtis at 00:59 AM on 2 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
Justin @6, based on the information you provide, the Himalaya's will rise by 0.5 meters over the next 100 years, ignoring erosion. That will cause an average decrease in temperature of less than 1/100th of a degree Centigrade due to increased altitude. Given that, your suggestion the geological activity in the Himalayas could significantly influence glacial melt or accumulation is laughable. So much so that I strongly suspect I am being Poed. Or perhaps it is that other, unfortunately common situation where an article so clearly presents evidence relative to global warming that fake "skeptics" feel compelled to say anything, not matter how absurd to distract readers from the article. Well, your comment is absurd. Your attempt at distraction, however, merely tells us Daniel's article is well worth rereading. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:16 AM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Tom, 16, Yes! Well said! The contradiction of the two positions ( [1] we need cheap energy for the poor and [2] carbon taxes are efforts to give money to the poor ) is striking. So, Peter... do you favor fossil fuel taxes on 1st world nations so that more of those resources will be used to help the poor? Or are you counting on the free market to donate electricity and heat to the poor, just out of its basic philanthropic nature? -
Bob Lacatena at 00:08 AM on 2 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter42, 17, Your understanding of what I said is completely wrong"My understanding of your post is that my statement about the need for inexpensive energy for developing nations, is false."
No. It is true, but it is overstated, not to be achieved through fossil fuels, and not really a valid motive for delaying action on climate change. It's a rationalization and an excuse for delay, not a motive for sticking to fossil fuels."...your reason is that you distrust..."
No. My reason is that I don't see fossil fuels today being used to improve the lives of the poor... only to build factories so that the rich can continue to get consumer goods dirt cheap while increasing the ranks of the poor in their own countries. So the argument that the poor need cheap fossil fuels fails because it's not actually being done. Your argument amounts to "but if we got serious about helping the poor and really wanted to do it, it would be too hard without fossil fuels." That statement is wrong in many ways."...not all who disagree are disingenuous..."
On this I agree. I don't think they all are disingenuous (though some are), but I do think the ones who are not disingenuous suffer from severe cognitive dissonance, sometimes coupled with a serious case of Dunning-Kruger. This is evidenced by the arguments they use, the debate tactics they use, and their abject readiness to avoid facts and embrace obvious falsehoods in order to support their positions. I think almost all of them use arguments like the one you put forth because they need to find any reason, any reason at all, to avoid changing their lifestyles, taking responsibility for their actions, and most of all intelligently recognizing the serious consequences of inaction. Part of my serious problem with the "lift them out of poverty" argument is that it is fairly new, and is taken up by more and more deniers. Anyone who needs a subconscious reason to avoid climate change loves that one, because they think it gives them the moral high ground. To me, it exaggerates their selfishness, because it shows that they are willing to risk suffering and hardship for others in the name of pretending to want to alleviate the suffering and hardship of others. Sorry, Peter. That particular argument leaves me cold and makes me sick. -
Justin at 00:05 AM on 2 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
It is typical of the Climate-Change Witnesses to ignore a major factor concerning glaciation of the Himalayas. The Himalayas are among the youngest mountain ranges on the planet. Their formation is a result of a continental collision or orogeny along the convergent boundaries between the Indo-Australian Plate and the Eurasian Plate. The collision began in the Upper Cretaceous period about 70 million years ago, when the north-moving Indo-Australian Plate, moving at about 15 cm/year, collided with the Eurasian Plate. Around 50 million years ago this fast moving Indo-Australian plate had completely closed the Tethys Ocean, whose existence has been determined by sedimentary rocks on the ocean floor and the volcanoes that fringed its edges. Since these sediments were light, they crumpled into mountain ranges rather than sinking to the floor. The Indo-Australian plate continues to be driven horizontally below the Tibetan plateau, which forces the plateau to move upwards. The Arakan Yoma highlands in Myanmar and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal were also formed as a result of this collision. The Indo-Australian plate is still moving at 67 mm/year, and over the next 10 million years it will travel about 1,500 km into Asia. About 20 mm/year of the India-Asia convergence is absorbed by thrusting along the Himalaya southern front. This leads to the Himalayas rising by about 5 mm/year, making them geologically active. The movement of the Indian plate into the Asian plate also makes this region seismically active, leading to earthquakes from time to time." The ridiculously short period which Daniel Bailey is drawing conclusions has no significance at all. It is like looking at the Leaning Tower of Pisa and telling people that its angle shows the shifting of the continental plates. It doesn't. It can't because it just hasn't been around long enough. Changes to the Himalayan glaciers in the last 1000 years would be statistically insignificant to a geologist, let alone the inferences being made by Mr Bailey over a period of a mere fifty years. The question is why Mr Bailey and other Witnesses chose not to mention the geological movement of the Indo-Australian Plate? The Himalayas are what they are as a result of their shifting geology, not the weather!Moderator Response: [DB] This is in the "Not-Even-Wrong" category. -
CBDunkerson at 23:03 PM on 1 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Peter42, yes you are misunderstanding. I did not say that solar energy can only compete with fossil energy if fossil energy becomes more expensive. Indeed, I said the opposite. However, that will only be the case if we switch over to solar as our primary means of power generation. Basically, like all developing technologies, there are efficiency and economy of scale benefits driving down the costs of solar power as implementation increases. If we stop implementing solar power then the price also stops decreasing. Thus, expensive fossil fuel is not required for solar to be competitive... but cheap fossil fuel could prevent the continued solar development needed for it to be competitive. Just as cheap fossil fuel delayed the sharp decline in solar prices over the past few years for decades previously. Also, the claim that renewable power is highly subsidized is laughable. Subsidies for renewable power are negligible in comparison to those provided to fossil fuel power. -
monkeyorchid at 18:18 PM on 1 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
For clarity, I suggest adding "in rate" to the line: "with a sharp increase IN RATE after 1997 (Shahgedanova et al., 2010)" -
skywatcher at 15:52 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde #537 - I see you have attempted to answer Bob and I's questions (both are similar). However, your answers consciously avoid any statement of why the expert in a field (heart surgery or climate) cannot become an expert modeller of a process in that field. Why is it that somebody, who has attained skill in understanding the processes of how something works, is precluded from encapsulating that knowledge in computer code? What I want to know is this: What is unique about a "modeller", that means neither a climatologist or a heart specialist can ever become one? How, in your opinion, do you become a "modeller"? Exactly what are the unique skills a modeller has? You see, fundamentally, what a "modeller" is, in this context, is someone who has the ability to generate computer code that results in an approximate representation of one or more processes in the climate system. They will have the ability to test that code, and to validate that code against expected results using synthetic data, as well as against real-world data. They can then correct their code or adjust the uncertainties accordingly. They will be able to estimate the uncertainties in their results and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their model. This is a technical skill, but one that is eminently achievable by physical/environmental scientists. By doing so, they become specialist climate modellers. You still have provided not one shred of justification as to why such scientists cannot do this. I don't actually believe you are willing to answer these questions adequately. Your subsequent casual comment concerning a Greenland climate paper equally shows you have little understanding of climatology, palaeoclimate, forcings, and regional versus global variations, to add to your evident failure to substantiate your original disparaging claims about climate modellers. Did you think warming/cooling was globally monotonic?Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link. -
scaddenp at 15:09 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
Clyde - that natural fires occur is not evidence against arson, but it would be better to direct comments to Climate has changed before. Computer models do "predict" past warming - its just that the forcing are different. -
Clyde at 15:05 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
I hope this is not off topic for this thread. The reason i think its not is the paper gives more evidence of past warming be equal to or greater than today's. Making climate models in my view not reliable enough to pass new laws & regulations. You only get a small part & have to pay to read the full paper. No i didn't pay to read the full paper. Another paper with evidence of past warming being equal to if not more than today's. My apologies again for this mistyped hyperlink.Moderator Response: [DB] Your link is indeed off-topic for this thread. Future off-topic comments will receive moderation. -
Clyde at 14:55 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
Bob Loblaw 534 First let me say i was only curious as to which was more complicated, GCM or HTML coding. I have no experience in GCM (big surprise i know -_^) coding. In the very little HTML coding I've been involved with its a pain in the butt. 1) What is your definition of a "computer modeler"? Somebody who can write the code & has the computer to run the code. 2) On what basis do you claim that any particular "climatology expert" is not knowledgeable about computer modeling, and how would this affect the work that they are doing? I'm going by say a doctor. A heart surgeon can operate on a heart, but that doesn't mean they can write the code & run it on a computer. If my comment left the impression i don't think any scientist has the ability to do both, that wasn't what i meant. 3)What else would I need in my background to convince you that I know enough about "computer modeling"? (My background was presented in this comment.) I don't recall saying you don't know enough about "computer modeling." I only "know" you from the brief interaction we've had here. The reason i asked you the question about the different coding was because you said you have written scientific code before. -
Peter42 at 14:53 PM on 1 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
To scaddenp @14 (11.44 am 1 June 2012): Thanks for the information that wind/hydro/geothermal have no subsidies operating where you are. Would you let us know where that is, please? Tom Curtis’ suggestion (@ 16, 12.24 pm 1 June 2012) strikes me as an equitable approach, of carbon dioxide taxes in developed countries, while developing countries catch up. To Sphaerica @15 (12.12 pm on 1 June 2012): I try to separate motive from policy; a good motive behind a poor policy results in a poor policy, and a poor motive behind a good policy results in a good policy. My understanding of your post is that my statement about the need for inexpensive energy for developing nations, is false; your reason is that you distrust absolutely the motives of some or many or even all who present that view. Certainly the “cry of ‘we need cheap fossil fuel energy to help the poor’” may be hypocritical of some, but not all. Further, while I quite accept the genuine conviction of most who argue that we humans are responsible for most recent global warming, one must accept that not all who disagree are disingenuous. I continue to discuss this issue with quite a number of people: there are those who agree, disagree, or reserve their judgment. I’ve not found any to be disingenuous. Further in my #13 post there is an example from the Indus past, which illustrates the deleterious effects of major climate change on populations, in this case arising from non-human causes. My own view is that as well as other actions, we need to equip people better to be able to cope with climate change. Enabling them to lift themselves out of poverty is one such step. -
Clyde at 14:48 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
Bob Loblaw 533 I read the comment you requested & understand your feelings about Pielke Sr. To the best of my knowledge his reason for turning of the comments on his blog was to avoid dealing with name calling/childish behavior. So far i haven't had that problem with you nor anybody else. This not the only time he has issued the challenge & not the exact page i was looking for. It does have the info needed if anybody wants to refute his claim. I would think if the models are as good as some say this should be an easy task. Read more here. This label, of course, can be avoided if the researchers provide quantitiative model and observational comparisons of multi-decadal regional and local predictions of changes in climate statistics, and show them to be skillful in terms of what metrics are needed by the impacts community. I invite anyone who has published such a study to present a guest post on this weblog alerting us to such a robust scientific study. -
skywatcher at 14:15 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
Tom, that first graph you show is even more egregious for another reason - the projections are shown by Evans as being initialised from a single high point in the noise of the temperature record in 1988. In reality, Hansen's model runs begin before 1960, and the individual runs are already diverging by 1988, depending on the different settings [e.g. scenario A has no volcanic forcing after 1988] of the model:
The scenarios A, B and C are spread over ~0.2C around 1988, and A does not cross B or C after this point (contrast Evans' A and B separation with Hansen's A and B). By doing this, Evans greatly exaggerates discrepancy between modelled and observed temperatures, a discrepancy not actually present (see in detail here at RealClimate, 3rd fig). Below is my estimate of the positions in 1988 of Hansen's Scenarios A, B and C (shaded grey circles), and Evans' start point for all three (blue square), based on GISS (used by Hansen) and UAH (used by Evans) data, with the temperature plots offset so they overlap in WoodForTrees plotting package:
The reality is that much of the visual discrepancy in Evans' chart is a consequence of his misrepresenting the positions of the model runs w.r.t. to 1988 temperature. He thus shifts all three model runs much too high, compared to the temperature.
Readers are left to ask the question why Evans chose to start all three model run plots from the same spot, a positions higher than any of the model runs as they were actually presented in Hansen's 1988 paper. They can then ask the question why Clyde thinks this is a good example of models not reproducing reality...
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:21 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
Re: Clyde's definition of "computer modeller" and pointers to blogs that purportedly show model weaknesses. You have utterly failed to provide a useful definition of "computer modeller". It is the equivalent of telling me that a "frobnitz gleabinator" is someone who can "gleabinate a frobnitz". As for your link to JoNova's site: I see no point in going to a blog written by someone with no basic understanding of climatology. Others have already posted critiques of that information, and I see no need to add to them now. As I mentioned in my earlier request, please provide links to real scientific literature (Pielke Sr. also doesn't count in this area of expertise), or at least web sites where real scientific information is presented. When you post such links, please provide at least a short description (in your own words) of just what it is I should expect to find there. Now, to continue this discussion, can you please provide me with answers to the following questions that I have already posed to you: 1) What is your definition of a "computer modeler"? 2) On what basis do you claim that any particular "climatology expert" is not knowledgeable about computer modeling, and how would this affect the work that they are doing? 3)What else would I need in my background to convince you that I know enough about "computer modeling"? (My background was presented in this comment.) -
Bob Loblaw at 13:05 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
Re: Clyde's mention of Pielke Sr. and his "challenge": I have no interest in going to Pielke's web site to find out what sort of "challenge" he has issued. He does not allow comments at his blog (last I visited), and I have no interest in trying to "engage" in a one-sided conversation completely in his control. If you wish to place a comment here describing what you understand the challenge to be, then I would be willing to discuss it with you. Pielke Sr. has participated in discussions here at SkS (in some of the blog posts I linked to above), and at Real Climate, and I have debated with him during those discussions. He is free to return here where we can debate on even terms. Since you don't have the time to read the many blog posts I referred you to, I will only suggest that you read this comment of mine on one of those threads, which may explain why I have no respect for Pielke Sr. as a scientist. -
Tom Curtis at 12:59 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
Peter42 @528, the "no dogpiling" rule is designed to avoid people, normally new questioners and/or skeptics, from facing an overwhelming number of responses, thus unintentionally intimidating them. It is certainly not intended to stop side conversations. That said, discussion of Hansen's 1988 predictions are probably off topic here, and should probably be carried across to Dana's excellent post on the topic. My point was not specifically about Hansen's predictions except that Evans completely misrepresents them, either through ignorance where he claimed knowledge, or through willfull deceit; and that therefore reference to his claims has no place in any intelligent discussion of this topic. That said, none of the three scenarios actually occurred, although what actually occurred more closely approximates to B than either other scenario. As Dana says:Total Scenario B greenhouse gas radiative forcing from 1984 to 2010 = 1.1 W/m2 The actual greenhouse gas forcing from 1984 to 2010 was approximately 1.06 W/m2 (NASA GISS). Thus the greenhouse gas radiative forcing in Scenario B was too high by about 5%."
Note that Dana uses a higher value for CO2 concentration than I do, presumably because he got his data from a different source. And yes, there are issues with Evans relative placement of predictions and temperatures (to compare trends, the trend of the different projections should be centered on the trend line of the data at the initial point of the graph to avoid misleading visual cues) and his choice of HadCRUT3 data rather than the more accurate GISTemp or NCDC temperature records. -
Bob Loblaw at 12:55 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
With Jim Eager stepping back and several others chiming in, and another request to avoid dogpiling, for the moment I will restrict my comments to a few direct statements from Clyde. First "Which is harder/more complicated - Writing code for GCM or writing HTML codes for a website? I consider this to be a rather misleading question. It's like asking "which is harder to edit? A book written in English on the growth of multinational corporations, or a book written in German on how to rebuild the engine of a Leopard tank? Both require editing skills, but one benefits from a knowledge of economics and business (and the English language), while the other is easier if you have a detailed understanding of internal combustion engines, tools (and can read and write German). ...but, to answer your question: - given the specifications of the required procedures, any competent programmer can likely implement the algorithms. - the major stumbling block is in determining the algorithms to use, and someone who knows climatology and numerical methods will do better at a GCM, and someone that knows HTML and graphics displays (or whatever the web page is supposed to do) will do better on the web page. In my personal experience (writing web pages by creating HTML in a text editor), the programming skills I developed in my climatology career made HTML a trivial exercise (for relatively simple web pages), and programmers that only know web development do a poor job at any sort of scientific/numerical programming. -
scaddenp at 12:53 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
TC - Jim Eager stepped aside 523 so I thought I would continue. Your excellent post was composed as I was composing mine.Moderator Response: TC: It happens. If it were me I was asking you to stand aside, I would step aside in that your post was more directly relevant to Clyde's argument, and you are far more qualified on this topic than I. As it happens, Skywatcher beat you to the punch. I consider my post an aside to rebuff the use of outrageously flawed misinformation. -
Tom Curtis at 12:24 PM on 1 June 2012IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2011 - the Good News and the Bad
Sphaerica @15, indeed! If reducing the cost of fossil fuels to third world countries so that their citizens could be lifted out of poverty where in fact our policy objective, there could be few better policies than a wide spread tax on fossil fuels (carbon tax) in first world countries only. By increasing first world costs, it would reduce first world demand and hence prices for those fossil fuels to the third world. Of course, that is not our objective - but neither is it that of those who oppose any suggestion of a carbon tax. Indeed we hear arguments carbon taxes (or emissions trading schemes) on the mutually contradictory grounds that: (a) cheap energy is needed to lift third world citizens out of poverty; and (b) that carbon tax proposals are just a leftist conspiracy to enrich the third world at the expense of the first world, and the United States in particular. -
scaddenp at 12:23 PM on 1 June 2012Models are unreliable
(snip) As to JoNova/David Evans misinformation - well look around Skepsci for take downs, (eg hot spot and Evans (snip) Hansen's 1984 model - yes it had sensivity wrong for well understood reasons. see Lessons from past predictions 1981 (and rest of that series for interest). And yes, climate sensitivity is still uncertain, but very unlikely to be less than 2 (or more than 4) - but claiming a past prediction is falsified by data on sensitivity doesnt fly when sensitivity wasnt a robust prediction. (snip)Moderator Response: TC: With regret, comments sniped for compliance with the no dogpiling rule. Explicit discussion of Hansen 1988 was retained as being a relevant response to my post,rather than to Clyde. If either of the two current respondents to Clyde with to step aside in your favour, I shall restore your comment (if the html code is working as it should). In that respect I note that your expertise is in computer modelling of petroleum basins.
Prev 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 Next
