Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 Next
Comments 58251 to 58300:
-
Rufus9 at 13:14 PM on 9 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
My main point which was addressed above was that drawing a connectivity network between parties with similar views may be interesting, but is not necessarily a sign of mass conspiracy. However, they can be a sign of group think, which is relatively commonplace in science. The peer review process itself is often flawed. One site to keep an eye on is: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ Papers are pulled or corrected all the time, but likely not at a sufficient frequency to correct all errors. No doubt there are flaws in HSI, but at least in my reading there were mathematical or methodological critiques as well, including a potentially biased view of the peer review and editorial review process, but still, even if half true, it raised my awareness of problems in this emotionally charged area of science. For a very interesting discussion on scientific research, repeatability, and issues with the peer review process, I recommend listening to this episode of Econtalk with Ed Yong. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/06/yong_on_science.html -
Alex The Seal at 11:06 AM on 9 June 2012Richard Alley Looks at The Big Picture
This is a great series but it's a pity about the whole ostrich thing. If you want to get someone to understand something.. and you start by likening them to an ostrich, you're really not going to get far. You can basically hear their minds creaking closed at that point. -
Tristan at 10:52 AM on 9 June 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
Ahh, that link shows it's not 1% less per annum, (which rapidly becomes a very high cost) it's 1% total by 2030, no biggie. -
dana1981 at 08:56 AM on 9 June 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
HR @10 - Skeptical Science covers both climate science and solutions. The Australian carbon pricing system is a climate solution. Discussing climate policy is not equivalent to discussing politics. For example, we did not criticize Plimer for his extreme political rhetoric, we simply corrected his factual errors when describing the policy solution. Discussing climate policy/solutions is entirely consistent with SkS guidelines. Discussing political motivations is not. -
Tom Curtis at 08:30 AM on 9 June 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
Humanity Rules @10, Australia's current leader of the opposition is on record as saying that the science behind Climate change is crap. That does not make defending the science of climate change a political activity, or this a political blog. In the same manner, just because Plimmer makes false statements about a politically contentious issue, ie, the cost and effectiveness of the carbon tax, does not mean there is no fact of the matter; and discussing those facts is not a political act. It is, perhaps, economics rather than climate science that is being misrepresented by Plimmer - but given that the topic falls well withing the range of issues discussed by the IPCC (see WG2 and WG3 reports), it is certainly well within the appropriate range of topics for SkS. -
HumanityRules at 07:21 AM on 9 June 2012Ian Plimer Pens Aussie Geologist Gish Gallop #2 of the Week
Dana, "As is our usual practice at Skeptical Science, we will not comment on Plimer's political rhetoric, but instead will focus on the many climate science myths contained in his piece" The whole section marked 'Misrepresentation of the Australian Carbon Pricing System" is about tax, legislation, jobs and energy pricing. Since when is this climate science and not politics?Moderator Response: [DB] Given the nature of the OP, some leeway is given to matters tangential to it. Such as the section you outline. Politics not related to the OP, ad hominems and "sloganeering" (and other things proscribed by the Comments Policy) are still off-limits. -
dana1981 at 07:07 AM on 9 June 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
I know in the USA the total estimated cost is around $1 trillion total beteween now and 2050. That's several times less than adaptation is expected to cost (see here). -
SRJ at 05:51 AM on 9 June 2012IPCC graph showing accelerating trends is misleading
# 86 SRJ and the discussion between me and Dikran in # 90, #95 and # 96 I should have mentioned that the graph of the GAM model shows 99% significance, marked with blue. Using the usual 95%, the GAM is significant until 2006. -
Tristan at 01:55 AM on 9 June 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
Hmm. 39 years of 1.02 growth vs 1.03 seems to cost around 20% of total production over that period. I wonder at what point adaptation costs that amount. Maybe when the first superfamine hits. -
vrooomie at 01:11 AM on 9 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
Justin@6: where to begin? First, your plagiarism of a unattributed Wiki article was (-snip-), not mention bordering on violating the 'no ad hominem' proscription of SkS. It was easy to find, BTW. Gotta love the Googleboxes! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas Second, your point, as was pointed out, is *not even wrong*, it's so wrong. It's utterly irrelevant, and supports nothing of real benefit to the discussion at hand. Lastly, as a geologist, all I can say is... /facepalm.Moderator Response: [DB] Please refrain from accusations of dishonesty. -
dana1981 at 00:54 AM on 9 June 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
I think that's right Tristan, though I could be mistaken. It could just be that it will cost 1% of GDP per year. -
Michael.M at 21:35 PM on 8 June 2012New research from last week 22/2012
Warmer temperatures reduce soil-fertility: Interactions between above- and belowground organisms modified in climate change experiments -
JohnMashey at 17:44 PM on 8 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Well, since it has been raised by Rufus9: 1) Of course, well-published climate scientists know each other. Well-published scientists in any field know each other. 2) But for an equivalent situation, one needs to find a substantial set of cases where a) demonstrably-bad papers were shepherded through peer review, over years, by members of the group, b) causing other editors to resign in protest. Even competent researchers make mistakes, but in the CR case, not-so-competent researchers were well taken-care-of. Let's see, Vincent Gray, retired coal researcher gets a *review paper* slot. Well, that makes sense. Competent researchers are each others' toughest critics and they especially don't give free passes if friends send around something not up to par. 3) HSI: Montford not only relied on a non-credible article in a "dog astrology journal" for a key theme in his book, but then he falsified an already-wrong statement about it. In academe, false citation like this is one of the deadly sins, and if Montford were an academic, formal misconduct complaints would have been filed long ago. The only defense would be a plea of incompetence in not reading a key reference. See archived HSI dog astrology discussion on Wikipedia, which no one would even address, much less refute. They repeatedly tried to removed it (a no-no), but The Stoat kept reverting it back. See He Who Quotes from Dog Astrology Journal, @ Rabett Run or this comment @ Andrew Gelman's. -
Tristan at 17:38 PM on 8 June 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
So if GDP growth were 1.03/annum under the no reduction regime, GDP growth would be 1.02/annum under the necessary cuts regime? -
gpwayne at 15:52 PM on 8 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
John Russell - Hi John - funny business about Dana's name appearing like that. It's the 'strong' tag, which I've now changed to 'b' (bold) instead. Dana Not surprised you don't spend much time in the Guardian threads, considering what a bloodbath it usually is. However, I was using them as a proxy for a wider target i.e. lay people. I think E&E get traction by 'looking like' sites that have more credibility within the scientific community, but generally I don't think the public can tell the difference, and those seeking to reinforce their own views through confirmation bias probably don't care. But it's a small point, and one I don't want to labour any further. Your work is far too good to harp on about this small point... -
dana1981 at 14:05 PM on 8 June 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
Tristan - yes, to achieve the necessary emissions cuts it's estimated that GDP growth from now to 2050 will be 1% slower (not taking into account the slowing of GDP due to climate change if we take no action). Note that's a global average GDP - it's bound to differ from country to country. -
Tristan at 13:30 PM on 8 June 2012Correction to the True Cost of Coal Power - MMN11
Maybe this isn't the thread but I'm looking to understand the ~1% net impact on GDP figure. Is that the cost of the transition? It doesn't seem feasible that Australia could transition to 100% renewable energy production for $15B. -
Rufus9 at 12:43 PM on 8 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
I put this article as: Imitation is the ultimate flattery. Essentially, this influence network has been described on both sides of this debate (see The Hockey Stick Illusion, of which you're all familiar). (off topic snipped)Moderator Response: TC: Given the nature of the OP, a well supported "tu quoque" must be considered on topic, and given some lee way to establish their case. Simple assertions, however, violate the comments policy restrictions against ad hominens and "sloganeering". If Rufus9 wants to substantiate his case as John Mashey did, he is welcome to do so. If he continues to simply assert his claim without evidence, however, his comments will not be given leeway with regard to the "no ad hominen" rule. -
scaddenp at 12:21 PM on 8 June 2012Models are unreliable
I would also describe myself as computer modeller (though not in climate, but petroleum basins). My qualifications are geology,maths and yes a few CS papers, notably postgrad numerical analysis. My main concerns are about the numerical methods to solve the equations in the code; their speed, accuracy and robustness. Validation is a huge issue. We also have CS-qualified software engineers who tirelessly work on the code as well. What they bring to the picture is rigorous code-testing procedures (as opposed to model testing which is not the same thing), and massive improvement in code maintainability. Not to mention some incredibly useful insights into the tricky business of debugging code on large parallel MPI systems, and some fancy front-ends. The modelling and software engineering are overlapping domains that work well together. I suspect Clyde thought climate modellers were not programmers at all, imagining people tinkering with pre-built packages. So much skepticism is built on believing things that are not true. -
Bob Loblaw at 11:36 AM on 8 June 2012Models are unreliable
JasonB: Yes, an interesting and illuminating example. It seems that Clyde is "on hiatus", but to continue the discussion a bit: "Climate Models" (of the numerical/computer-based type) date back to the 1960s, when all computing was done on mainframes. Individuals wrote portions of code, but the mainframes also typically had installed libraries of common mathematical routines. The one I remember from my mainframe days is IMSL, which (from the Wikipedia page linked to) appeared on the scene in 1970, and is still actively developed. Such libraries were typically highly-optimized for the systems they were running on, and brought state-of-the-art code to the masses. (When I hear object-oriented affectionados talk about "reusable code" as if it is some novel concept, I think back to the days when I created my own linkable libraries of routines for use in different programs, long before "object oriented" was a gleam in someone's eye.) Of course, "state-of-the-art" was based on hardware that would compare badly to the processing power of a smart phone these days, and "the masses" were a small number of people that had access to universities or research institutes with computers. When I was an undergraduate student, one of my instructors had been a Masters student at Dalhousie University in Halifax (east cost) when it got the first computer in Canada east of Montreal. The university I attended provided computing resources to another university in Ontario that did not have a computer of its own. JasonB's description of developing algorithms and such is just what doing scientific computing is all about. The branch of mathematics/computing that is relevant is Numerical Methods, or Numerical Analysis, and it is a well-developed field of its own. It's not user interfaces and pretty graphs or animations (although those make programs easier to run and data easier to visualize), and a lot of what needs to be known won't be part of a current CS program. (My local university has four courses listed in its CS program that relate to numerical methods, and three of them are cross-references to the Mathematics department.) This is a quite specialized area of CS - just as climate is a specialized area of atmospheric science (or science in general). The idea that "climate experts" have gone about developing "climate models" without knowing anything about computers is just plain nonsense. -
citizenschallenge at 09:30 AM on 8 June 2012Hockey stick replaced with a hockey team
Time to update this information ;-) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "Yet More Studies Back Hockey Stick: Recent Global Warming Is Unprecedented In Magnitude And Speed And Cause" Eric Steig guest post at Think Progress -
dana1981 at 08:27 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Paul - I think it's important to dispel these sorts of energy-related myths, as they're integral to climate solutions. If people think our problems are tied to insufficient fossil fuel production, then we're in trouble, because in reality we need to be transitioning away from fossil fuels rapidly to achieve the necessary emissions reductions. -
Paul D at 08:02 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
I'm not convinced that this post is does much other than help publicise the American election campaign. It is a bit reactionary and is Singer/Watts really worth so much effort? Recent surveys support renewables and even higher energy prices. Public (UK) back wind farm subsidies, survey suggests: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17783604 Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1527.html -
dana1981 at 03:12 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Well, although I try not to read WUWT frequently, I do often see posts there devoted exclusively to attacking renewable energy solutions. So in that sense this post wasn't out of character, but the explicit endorsement of Mitt Romney did seem rather out of place. -
KR at 01:51 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
BWTrainer - A non-CO2 strategy is certainly part of a reasonable approach - the Montreal Protocol and the ensuing CFC reductions have had significant effect. But I would consider those simply a few of the "wedges" (see this thread) that can be used to address the issue. And yes, Watts' inconsistencies re: pollution/not pollution, sun/albedo vs ENSO vs cosmic rays, etc., are quite amusing. Denial isn't about a consistent picture, but rather about lots and lots of noise confusing the issue. This particular Singer post was, however, really out of place, as it's not even bad science - it's not a discussion of the science at all. -
dana1981 at 01:45 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Chris G @5 - we've got several posts on the true cost of coal power (for example here) which show that when externalities are accounted for, many renewable energy technologies are already cheaper. The claim about energy bills in this post was specific to US legislation, in which I believe some of the funds from carbon permitting were to be used to offset the costs to individuals for various energy efficiency measures. In other words while there is an up-front cost, much of that cost is paid for through the carbon pricing system. Effectively electricity prices go up to pay for electricity consumption to go down, and in the end the prices approximately offset. The net impact on GDP is generally estimated at closer to 1% than 3% as well. -
dana1981 at 01:38 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Climate Progress has a good post today showing that green energy leads to more job creation than fossil fuel energy, which is relevant to this post. -
Chris G at 01:36 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Dana (#4), IIRC, the Bush administration was the original propagator of this misrepresentation of Hansen's work regarding non-CO2 forcings. Dr. Hansen was somewhat surprised that they were so interested in what he had said as to want to hear more, until he learned that they had taken away only the part that other forcings matter, and not with the overall conclusion. -
Chris G at 01:29 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Re: "...electricity bills would remain essentially unchanged due to the implementation of energy efficiency measures." This sounds a bit like pushing the cost from the use of electricity to the cost of more efficient equipment. Generally, more efficient equipment is more expensive; else, no one would buy the less efficient models. Not that there isn't savings in the long-term. We might as well admit that the reason that we are using fossil fuels is that they are cheaper, at least in direct cost, than any alternative, and that switching to alternatives will increase the cost of energy. There will be knock-on savings in less pollution and improved health. However, I don't think those are easy to quantify. My impression (sorry, no time to look up references at the moment) is that estimates of cost to quit using fossil fuels range from 'It will wreck the economy and throw us back into the stone age.' to 'It it can be done for next to no cost.' I don't think either of these is terribly realistic. The general pattern seems to be that the former conclusions are reached by those with ties to the FF industry, and the latter reached by green groups. Speaking in very round numbers, and blurring distinctions that maybe ought not to be, the FF industry makes up about 7% of the U.S. GDP. If alternatives cost about 1.5x what fossil fuels cost, and using that as a ballpark proxy for energy production in general, energy production might go to 10% of GDP. That somewhat jives with the estimates I recall that came in around the switch costing 3% of GDP (but I can't recall the time-frame.) There really isn't any argument against continued BAU causing devastation and catastrophe sooner or later. So, in a nutshell, the choice comes down to a 3% inhibition in GDP growth or a bottleneck in the human population. It's just really hard to convince people that is the choice before them, and postponing the decision is actually choosing the latter. -
dana1981 at 01:10 AM on 8 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
chriskoz @1 - indeed, other than the Inhofe hoax comment the editorial did not touch on climate science at all. Singer entirely focused on telling Romney that he should focus on fossil fuels in order to win the 2012 presidential election. I have to say it was a little strange to read such a blatant political piece on a purported climate science blog, which claims to have won various science blog awards (those awards being based entirely on popularity, not quality, of course). BWTrainer @3 - I saw that post on WUWT. I didn't really like the way Hansen et al. had phrased the problem, because since CO2 is a long-lived greenhouse gas, we can't solve the problem without addressing CO2 emissions, and I think they focused too much on non-CO2 emissions. Watts exploited the somewhat poor phrasing in that 12-year-old paper. That being said, their point was simply that non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon have caused roughly as much warming as CO2 thus far, so we should also address those other anthropogenic forcings. I also found it rather amusing that Watts admitted that non-CO2 GHGs are "pollutants". I'm not sure why methane qualifies and CO2 doesn't. Bit of a slip of the tongue from Watts there. -
Composer99 at 01:08 AM on 8 June 2012The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Justin: Denialism is set squarely against the advancement of scientific knowledge and against innovation. Who are antivaccine denialists, AIDS/HIV denialists, germ theory denialists? They're homeopaths, chiropractors, holistic healers, reiki masters, and the like. They're the parents of autistic children asserting vaccines caused their childrens' autism and then resorting to bleach baths & enemas or industrial chelation to try to 'treat' it. They're the people claiming cancer is caused by liver flukes (Hulda Clark) or "acidity" (Robert Young). What they are not is furthering our understanding of immunology, virology, bacteriology, microbiology, and biochemistry. Likewise, young-earth creationists (engaged in denialism of geology & evolutionary biology) aren't the ones furthering our understanding of genetic evolutionary mechanisms or geological processes or paleontology. Suffice it to say, the suggestion that denialism is at all associated with scientific advancement is IMO unequivocally false. -
dana1981 at 00:55 AM on 8 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
gpwayne @6 - maybe I'm in a quasi-ivory tower here. I almost never see E&E papers cited, though I don't read the comments on The Guardian very often. John Russell @7 - thanks very much. The 3% figure is a ballpark, depending on what study is being referenced. I agree that technically the figure is probably lower, with 'undecideds' making up the difference. It would indeed be interesting to see the reviewers on E&E papers. -
BWTrainer at 23:40 PM on 7 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Let me apologize ahead of time, because what I'm about to say is only tangentially related to this column in that both are dealing with WUWT, but I didn't know where else to post. Having unfortunately clicked on the link to Singer's editorial, I stumbled across this brilliant Watts piece in which he basically claims that CO2 is nothing to worry about because James Hansen, in one paper from 12 years ago, said that focusing on non-CO2 GHG reduction would be a wise strategy. While the paper does say that, Watts (as usual) is horribly distorting the true message of it, which was that, at that point in time, the warming associated with CO2 was responsible for 50% of the increased energy, but was roughly cancelled out by the other cooling pollutants that were emitted along with CO2 when burning coal. In other words, the Earth would be twice as hot if not for air pollution. But that's apparently a positive in Watts' book. Great news! The pollution that is killing us is also acting to cool the planet, so we should keep on burning away! -
Composer99 at 21:08 PM on 7 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
The evidence suggests that, with limited exceptions such as the Keystone decision, President Obama has been pretty pro-fossil fuel in deed. That said, given Singer's history on climate science and the policy imperatives it reveals I'm not surprised he has so baldly misrepresented the activity of the first-term Obama administration. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:12 PM on 7 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
I'd be rather suprised if Energy & Environment didn't have a significant pal review issue. There simply are not very many skeptic climatologists competent to review the science based papers published there, so unless they regularly send papers out to mainstream climatologists to review (the E&E papers I have read suggest this is unlikely) they would have to settle for incompetent reviewers (i.e. people competent in their own field, but unqualified or inexperienced in climatology). Many journals publish the names of the reviewiers that they have used each year (obviously not mentioning which papers they reviewed). It would be interesting to see such a list for E&E. It would go a long way to addressing the pal review issue if more journals did this. -
chriskoz at 19:42 PM on 7 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Is the "'hoax' of climate catastrophes from rising CO2 levels" the only statement related to climate science Singer has uttered? As the atmospheric physicist, Singer should do much better, shouldn't he? At least try to justify that statement with some arguments (valid or not) but he didn't say any supporting word? Instead he's chosen to talk about the market of fossil fuels, where he is not an expert (I cannot find anything related in his CV), so no wonder the talk does not make sense. That's an indication how far from reality this man has departed. -
John Russell at 19:02 PM on 7 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
A few comments. 1) You write "the ~3% minority of experts who think humans aren't the dominant cause of the current climate change". Is this correct? As I remember it the figure is 1%, with 2% being in the 'don't know' category. 2) GPWayne is correct to call this 'projection'. Because the contrarians operate as a pals network themselves, experience tells them that this must be the way everyone works the system -- I mean, stands to reason doesn't it? 3) I was confused by the large 'Dana1981' at the start of the second paragraph of GPWayne's comment. I thought for a moment that that was Dana's response and had to read it twice before I realised it was a continuation of Graham's comment. Dana: I am astonished by the quality and quantity of your output. More power to your elbow. -
gpwayne at 15:37 PM on 7 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
While Michaels is indeed something of an expert on the subject, his expertise comes from himself being one of the individuals most guilty of engaging in climate research pal review.
Projection should be another category, making it 6 characteristics of denialism. From the constant references to blind belief unsupported by evidence (religion), to the conspiracy theories of 'pal' review, through the references to 'alarmist' science (what's more alarmist than a world conspiracy of scientists, or a global plot to control and tax us?), it is so often the case that those making the accusations are most guilty of that which they claim to abhor, as we can clearly see in Michaels' case. One thing is clear: the contrarians are entirely unconcerned with their own egregious hypocrisy. Dana1981: much though I admire your contributions, I think you misunderstand the nature of the debate in the same way as do so many with a science background. When you say 'Ineffective pal review though, since everybody knows the journal (E&E) isn't serious', you are really referring to those who are either scientists or informed lay people. The public can make no such distinction, which is why E&E papers are so frequently cited in Guardian debates, for example. They may be duff papers, but they are far from being ineffective. Underestimating the enemy is never a wise strategy, and we are engaged - like it or not - in a propaganda war, which is largely the sub-text of this article. -
JohnMashey at 15:26 PM on 7 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Well-known PR techniques in climate anti-science include, in decreasing order of desirability: • Publish a paper refuting the existence of AGW in a good journal, such as Science or Nature. This basically does not happen, so next best is to publish one arguing for much higher uncertainty than the mainstream. • Find a otherwise-credible journal with process weaknesses. a) Either find a sympathetic editor (CR, deFreitas) or b) exploit the weaknesses, especially if the journal is unfamiliar with the context issues (Remote Sensing) • Publish a paper with reasonable, if unremarkable research that only experts follow, but with unrelated comments casting doubt on AGW, that can be quoted as appearing in a peer-reviewed journal. (many cases at CR) • Publish in a journal that will publish almost anything. (E&E, Journal of Scientific Exploration). -
calyptorhynchus at 10:31 AM on 7 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Just a little quibble about Figure 1, the line up to 2000 is black with blue dots indicating each year. This gives the impression of blue and black lines superimposed and it looks as if Easterbrook B continues this line. Better to have a plain black line for the observed temperatures. -
dana1981 at 04:45 AM on 7 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Yes as Dikran notes, Easterbrook's presentation of the IPCC projections was a gross distortion, but we should not comment about his motives. Let's just proceed under the assumption that simply made a number of errors and to this point nobody has corrected them. -
Don9000 at 02:54 AM on 7 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Dana: Thank you for the excellent report [snip]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can the discussion on this article be kept strictly to the science, without any inferences regarding motives or ad-hominems. -
Enginerd at 14:11 PM on 6 June 2012In Search Of: Himalayan Ice Loss
Thank you for this very thorough and informative post. Justin: The post from you (and Wikipedia) is correct. The time scale considered in the data is "ridiculously short" when compared to geological time scales. The problem I have with such arguments, however, is that they become convenient excuses for not acknowledging the effects of climate change. For instance, when climate-related records fall year after year after year, you can always state that the time frame covered by our data is "ridiculously short." Not a very scientific argument, I must say. To me, the information presented here is yet another in the growing list of converging lines of evidence showing that our climate is most definitely warming, and this warming is due largely to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. -
ranyl at 10:17 AM on 6 June 2012Modelling the Apocalypse
Please excuse my rushed post Tom, and I did not ascert that loss of the Arctic sea ice would entirely mimic the Laurentide Ice sheet loss in anyway, just pointing out it is a large area of sea that is changing colour in the summer when it does get a reasonable amount of insolation on average in the present day of ~180w/m2/pa compared to ~300w/m2/pa for the Laurentide Ice sheet and Laurentide Ice sheet was larger than the summer average summer extent of the sea ice at ~12million km2 compared to 7million km2 (before 2000), therefore clearly less than ice sheet. However the ice sheet would have taken eons to melt whereas the arctic sea ice seems to be melting very quickly especially in the important summer months and in the summer months the insolation in the arctic latitudes is higher than the lower latitudes of the Laurentide ice sheet, at ~500 w/m2/pmonth, compared to 480w/m2/pmonth...http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/srmonlat.cgi, therefore my pint was not that the alebdo effect was the same as the Laurentide ice sheet more that it is quick and I suspect it is significant due to its size. In the Lowe paper the headline detail was that the rate of fall of PCO2 was 0.2ppm per yer, so a whole magnitude less than your ascertation of 2ppm, and this was mainly due to carbon modelling they used including a climate-CO2 positive feedback factor. The majority of this feedback is derived from tropical feedbacks as demonstrated by Roeckner et al(1), and is due to temperature change and water stresses in tropics, however these are very mild for low emissions scenarios and represent a fall in the size of the annual sink not a trnasformation of the sink to a source as has occured in the tropics already. These models by Roeckner also shows however that boreal continue to an ever increasing sink yet it is already been shown the Canadian boreal forest is source, due to forest fires and infestations both factors which are not included in these carbon models and not in Archers paper either. And neither models included permafrost release of CO2 as this has only occurred realistically since 2010. Also Note Lowe didn't include any other GHG for the graph above and they started the simulation from temperature and GHG records in 2000, and thus no heat stored in the ocean for the 2012 no emissions scenario yet both the 2050(so 50years of additional heating) and the 2100 run do and both scenarios continue to warm after the emissions stop. Now is it me or is the heating in the pipeline due to lagged the expression of the eenrgy imbalance to surface temeprature expression a myth, as far as I have read the earth is meant to warm to about 1.4C above pre-industrial according Hansen etc whatever we do, due the warming in the system yet these models are showing no additional heating at all. (1)Historical and future anthropogenic emission pathways derived from coupled climate–carbon cycle simulations Erich Roeckner · M. A. Giorgetta · T. Crueger · M. Esch · Julia Pongratz, Climatic Change (2011) 105:91–108 http://www.springerlink.com/content/q50mp5004654654k/ I would also suggest you reas the European Nitrogen Assessment on the Nitrogen fertilization effects and ozone interactions with methane, it all seems reasonable, well considered and well investigated. You say that the factors I mentioned as not being included in the carbon models are, yet this is not the case, for although they may include the effect of a warming ocean on its ability to absorb CO2 they don't account for the scale of changes being observed and nor do make the Southern ocean a source due ot increasing westerlis as has also been observed, and the changes in North Atlantic and never mimicked by the models, further more the FACE traisl show nutrient deprviation effects and water stress factors that are greater than predicted and they show a cessation of the CO2 fertilization effects after 5-10years whereas the modles keep on increaseing this unless water stress intervenes, and although the models do indeed mimc some eco-systems shifts due to changing climate none of them include eco-systems and biodiversity losses due to oceanic dead zones, pollution, waste, over exploitation, eco-system destabilisation, invasive alien species, and eco-system effects on CO2 sequestration may well be more profound than cliamtic effects,"At the study site, local disturbances appeared to exert an impact on the observed carbon sequestration, whereas climatic factors made moderate contributions." (2). 2. Detection and attribution of global change and disturbance impacts on a tower observed ecosystem carbon budget: a critical appraisal Akihiko Ito, Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 014013 (6pp) http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014013 Then you say that many of the papers I quoted previously were about climate sensitivity, and you say this is off topic, well I disagee aswe seem to be talking about whether we agree that a temprature flatline is realistic with a total cessation of CO2 emissions. I say this is not realistic and the main reason for the lack of warming is due to an overactive draw of CO2 casuing an exagerated cooling influence...and of course there will be further warming due to the other GHG's and sudden loss of aersols that would occur, the heating already in the pipeline and the continued albedo effects, so the assumption for me is incorrect and leads to a false hope. Also the CS is critical, and Hasen and Sato CS is for CO2 alone, they are very clear that the albedo effects during the alst several glacials is as strong and they only make the last glacial 4.5C coler and the early Pliocene 2C warmer, whereas many others make the last glacial 6C cooler and the Pliocene 3-5oC warmer, and remember again CO2 was 350ppm then...although Hansen does agree that the arctic sea ice melt shoudln't make a huge difference as it is small, despite its size and influence on th ewhole cliamtic system, which so seems to pumping heat into the arctic at faster rates than anticipated. Considering the ppm have risen from 280ppm to 393ppm for ~1/2 Trillion tonnes I presume that another 1/2 trillion tonnes (1 trillion in all) will get us to ~500ppm and you are sayign you feel safe with as all emissions will stop at that point and the overshoot scenario fuesl by carbon drawdown will keep us below 20C, yet all th recent models in the papers previously quoted make 2C inevitable and by 2050 for this size of scale of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now I could go on and mention the greater of effects of droughts on the carbon cycle than anticipated, the increases in soil respiration in Autumn, and the recent paper by Shakun (3), where the primary driver for temperature rise is CO2, and alebdo has a surprisingly mainly regional effect, and despite CO2 plateauing at 12000BP the temperature rises a further 1C, as a by the by they have a CO2 rise of 0.44 (180-260ppm) of a doubling and a temperature rise of 3.5C, or a CS for CO2 if the ice albedo is considered a feedback (and small as they suggest) of 7.9C, or a CS of ~4C if split 50/50 into CO2 and ice as Hansen and Sato do. Anyway bottom line for me is that 350ppm if the Pliocnee data is right means a shift in climate that is at best risky and means 1.8-3C warming by 2100 unless you use Hansens Pliocene values when we get 1.6C (but this level of warming in temr sof climatic shfits etc is the same as the 1.8-3C above in real terms), is only just safeish considering the events that are already occuring (Missippi Floods, French Floods, Pakistan, Amazon Drought, Queensland floods, Texas Drought, and so on and so on).. So for me we are already well over our carbon budget and our eco-systems are feelinjg the strain, so I call not only for 350ppm as a definitive target but also a realisation of what that actually means, I using the MagicC model to get to 350ppm will take a mircale of zero emissions by 2017 and large carbon sequestration after that to increase the 0.2ppm/pa to 0.5ppm/pa, counter the CO2 influxes from permafrost melt, wetland increase, etc. And finally in the study by Archer, they pulsed the CO2 into the atmosphere so 50% shoudl have been withdrawn almost immeadiately to keep with the reality we know and therefore to ascertain how slow CO2 will be drawndown once it is at a certain ppm, you have to go to the 50% point(1year) and then see the rate of decline and doing that it takes about 400year to fall to 50% so much slower than the graphic suggests. Therefore it is up to you if you feel reassured with putting another 1/2 Trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere at this point to have a 50/50 chance of missing 2C, like 1.9C is safe!, However I don't and there are many calling for 350ppm amd I agree with them. (3)http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/shakun-et-al.pdfModerator Response: [DB] Converted Google link string into actual URL. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:13 AM on 6 June 2012Bob Carter's Financial Post Gish Gallop of Scientific Denial
Leto I disagree. It is important to point out Carter's statute as fake expert for numerous reasons. The first one is that his expertise is limited enough to border on the non-existent. There is no reason to sugar-coat it and use politically correct euphemisms to describe that, especially in view in the hateful rethoric spewed by deniers against real experts. The next one is that, even though his expertise is so limited, he portrays himself in the exact opposite fashion and he, and others, then attempt to use the impression thus created to ascertain ideas from authority, an authority that in fact does not exist. Many people comment here on climate. I have followed SkS since its very beginning and I was part of the original moderation team. I relinquished that privilege when I no longer had the time to keep up with the work and build my expertise to a level appropriate for the standards maintained here. I have closely followed the evolution of most of the moderators and I am pleased to say that their level of expertise on the subject has increased constantly, continues to do so, and is now quite impressive. Yet I do not recall a single one of them ever claiming to be an expert. They all defer to scientists who actively study the field and regularly publish their findings (the real experts). That is the basic premise of SkS' existence. Commenters on SkS are very rarely called upon to disclose their expertise. When someone makes sweeping statements (in any direction) going against well established science without the necessary substantiation, they're asked their sources for such statements. If nothing comes, there may be sometimes asked by other commenters what their expertise is. I can not at the moment recall an occurrence in which the moderation team asked a commenter to disclose their expertise. It is quite common that egregious mistakes be pointed out in no ambiguous terms, as they should be. That is another area where sugar-coating should be avoided. Even at that, if you peruse the 2nd law of thermodynamic thread, you'll gain new respect for the patience of SkS' moderators. -
SRJ at 08:19 AM on 6 June 2012Solar cycles cause global warming
A new paper by Kristoffer Rypdal demonstrates that the cycles in the temperature series found by Camp and Tung are caused by volcanic eruptions, not the solar cycle. Citing from the paper: "In particular, the cyclic GMST variations reported by Camp and Tung [2007] is naturally explained as a result of a succession of volcanic eruptions, ending with Mount Pinatubo in 1991." Reference: Rypdal, K. (2012), Global temperature response to radiative forcing: Solar cycle versus volcanic eruptions, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D06115, doi:10.1029/2011JD017283. -
dana1981 at 07:06 AM on 6 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Alexandre @3 - I think a key difference is that Climate Research was considered a serious peer-reviewed climate science journal before the pal review incident. Energy&Environment has never been considered a legitimate peer-reviewed climate science journal. But I agree it could qualify as 'pal review'. Ineffective pal review though, since everybody knows the journal isn't serious. -
Alexandre at 06:48 AM on 6 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
What about the openly biased Energy&Environment, the ultimate refuge of climate inactivists? I wonder if that is good enough to qualify as pal review... Maybe editor-simpathy-review? -
Marco at 05:06 AM on 6 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Allow me to make one objection, composer99: most journals do not make it clear who the Editor is that handled the paper. Climate Research did do this until about 2006 or so. That means that it will be difficult to do a similar analysis for "mainstream" climate scientists. -
dana1981 at 02:37 AM on 6 June 2012Bob Carter's Financial Post Gish Gallop of Scientific Denial
Leto @38, see my comment #16 which explains why we raised the issue of Carter as a fake expert here. Additionally, fake experts are one of the five characteristics of scientific denialism, as noted in the post, and we have been trying to highlight those characteristics when they are exhibited by denialists. Carter gave us a great example of the fake expert characteristic here. Good points on the subject from Tom Curtis @39 as well.
Prev 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 Next
