Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 Next
Comments 59101 to 59150:
-
victull at 12:21 PM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
eric @17 Your graph shows a pretty flat imbalance at about 0.9W/M2 since 1998. James Hansen is claiming about 0.6W/M2 over the last 5-6 years. This confirms my suggestion that there is doubt about whether or not the imbalance is growing or shrinking. -
Tom Curtis at 12:18 PM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Cole @30, the core of Svensmark's new paper is the correlation he has shown between biodiversity:
and his estimate of rates of near by super novas:
You can't see the correlation between the two charts? Neither can I. The reason is that Svensmark purports to show a correlation between marine invertebrate biodiversity and his estimated supernova rate. He just assumes, or simply fails to mention, that marine invertebrate biodiversity is a good proxy for biodiversity in general. It is not. It is not even a good proxy for marine biodiversity after the great radiation of fish in the Devonian.
So we have this puzzle, why is marine invertebrate biodiversity strongly effected by supernova rates, while all other forms of biodiversity are not? The most likely cause for the apparent correlation is no cause, ie, pure coincidence. This is particularly the case as Svensmark does not even show a correlation with marine invertebrate biodiversity, but only with marine invertebrate biodiversity as normalized for sea level.
There is an unusually large change in sea level coincident with with the Permian/Triassic boundary associated with the formation, and then break-up of Pangea. The associated change in sea level is sufficiently large that Svensmark's untested normalization formula is unlikely to properly compensate for the effects of changes in sea level on marine invertebrate biodiversity.
That means the correlation Svensmark is trumpeting is almost certainly nothing more than the coincidence of the estimated period of peak local supernova rate with the formation of Pangea. This is particularly the case as the correlation his asserts is poor outside the large excursion at the Permian/Triassic boundary.
Unless, of course, Svensmark has stunning new evidence that Galactic Cosmic Rays cause continental drift.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:53 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarcisio Jose D @19, Your first video gives an account of the dry and moist adiabatic rate, and the consequences of surface heating, which is all very well, up until 6:40 seconds when you say, "That is the green house effect". That is not the greenhouse effect. You might as well say that Newton's second law of motion (F=ma) is the Universal Law of Gravitation (F=G(m(1)*m(2))/r^2). I'll certainly second Eric (skeptic)'s recommendation that you read my introduction to the greenhouse effect; and take up any issues there. However, I disagree with his comment about T-skew plots. Below the tropopause, the concentrations of greenhouse gases, at least within normal ranges, is irrelevant to the adiabatic lapse rates, except in that CO2 has a different specific heat to nitrogen or oxygen. Given relative concentrations, the contribution of GHG to the specific heat of air, and hence to the dry and moist adiabatic lapse rates is minimal. -
muoncounter at 11:48 AM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Cole, Your #30 seem to be referring to the latest from Svensmark. Already noted here. Any guesses as why he's the sole author of this? Agee's result is a clear swing-and-a-miss for Svensmark. The rallying cry 'do more research' is a valid one -- especially as the existing research hasn't done what was claimed. -
jyyh at 11:29 AM on 6 May 2012rbutr Puts Climate Information In Front of Those Who Need It Most
Nope. I like to know when I watch space-nazies. I won't be endorsing the debate between the non-conformal theory of angel-flight against gravitation. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:25 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Tarcisio José D your linked video is partly addressed here to which I would only add that the shape of skew-T plots shown in the linked video is very dependent on concentrations of GHGs such as CO2. -
Cole at 10:46 AM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Hmm, the link to the paper didn't post. Here it is again. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20953.x/abstract -
Tarcisio José D at 10:31 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
JimF @7 I am very sure that I am right in saying that all who believe in the warming of our planet is caused by CO2 are totally wrong, no matter which way bearing. I have two movies posted on youtube that clearly show that global warming is completely natural. This .... The_greenhouse_efect_completely-natural And the other is "our atmospher is opaque". Watch and then comment. ok -
threadShredder at 10:04 AM on 6 May 2012rbutr Puts Climate Information In Front of Those Who Need It Most
So lay readers of legitimate science and opinion who lack the background to know when they're being duped will also be linked to specious, deliberate misinformation, right? Is that a wonderful thing?Moderator Response: Hi threadShredder,I think this is a common concern and one that deserves a detailed reply.
First of all, the idea that someone who would go out of their way to find legitimate science in the first place, would then be the sort of person to be swayed by 'specious, deliberate misinformation' doesn't seem justified to me. In my experience, people are already convinced by the 'specious' misinformation well before they ever come across legitimate science, and secondly, the sort of people who look for legitimate science, aren't likely to be easily convinced by nonsense. So immediately, the concern that good information will be rebutted with bad information shouldn't be concerning at all - the people who are likely to be more swayed by the bad information vs the good information probably already had their minds made up before the arguments were made.
Following on from that scenario though, said person who has chosen to ignore solid science and be 'duped' by 'specious, deliberate misinformation' will hopefully be presented with yet another rbutr alert to a rebuttal of the misinformation. Afterall, the information is all already out there. All rbutr is attempting to do is connect the right information to the pages which need to be rebutted. And for every page full of misinformation, there is already a collection of pages rebutting them. All we're asking for, is some help finding these articles so that we can add them as rebuttals to the misinformation.
Because now, our scenario has this person sequentially exposed to legitimate science, specious misinformation, and then a detailed deconstruction of why the misinformation was specious - and hopefully has enough information to actually have a *chance* of changing their mind from their previously already decided state. Which I am sure you may have noticed by now, is quite a challenging thing to achieve.
Is this a wonderful thing? Please indulge me in my favourite quote of all time, which pretty much sums up my philosophy, and why I think rbutr *is indeed* a wonderful thing:
"John Stuart Mill argued that silencing an opinion is "a peculiar evil." If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the "opportunity of exchanging error for truth"; and if it's wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in its "collision with error." If we know only our own side of the argument, we hardly know even that: it becomes stale, soon learned by rote, untested, a pallid and lifeless truth." - Carl Sagan
And please consider that ultimately, you can choose to sit on the sideline decrying how the system may be abused, or you can join in the fight and link every piece of misinformation you ever find to the best rebuttals of that misinformation that you know, and help expose truth to those who have stumbled across error...
Shane Greenup
-
Cole at 10:02 AM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
From the Agee paper: 'This represents a possible observational disconnect, and the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR-Cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change.' Muon you seem to have left something out- The second half of the conclusions... Research on the GCR-cloud correlations must continue, particularly in view of the two physical mechanisms mentioned above (as well as the uncertainty in the reliability of the ISCCP lower troposphere cloudiness to show the proposed correlations). Finally, it is clearly known that other factors can affect mean global cloudiness besides solar variability, due to internal forcing mechanisms on different time scales (such as ENSO). -
jimb at 09:49 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
@ 11 victul- maybe he was reading a quote from MSNBC which reported the 'recantation' of global warming 'guru' J.E. Lovelock -http://m.edmontonsun.com/2012/04/30/global-warming-guru-says-not-so-fast who was quoted as saying ""The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," He doesn't specify where he got the information about the 'frying world" -
Cole at 09:37 AM on 6 May 2012ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
The forbrush decrease paper was measuring the short term effects on cosmic rays (and temperature) caused by solar flares. The effect is measurable on a scale of hours. Long term changes in CR intensity are caused by shifts in the suns magnetosphere. The "what about the years without" statement is ridiculous. The Agee paper reports on a "possible" disconnect and it is widely recognized that we can't really observe changes in global cloudiness as we would need stationary instruments in space to watch every area daily. So the results of said paper are spurious at best. Furthermore the effect isn't small as you are attempting to claim. Here's a more recent paper for you. Here are the main results: The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else. The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else. Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained.. As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times. "As for the palaeobiology, remarkable connections to the longterm histories of life and the carbon cycle have shown up unbidden (Figs. 20, 21, 22). Biodiversity, CO2 and δ13C all appear so highly sensitive to supernovae in our Galactic neighbourhood that the biosphere seems to contain a reflection of the sky." AGW-0Moderator Response: TC: Edited to include link. -
Eric (skeptic) at 09:27 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
victull, here's a paper with an estimate of the change in the imbalance: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1140.pdf with the pertinent imbalance trend from fig 7d (assumes deep ocean mixing hence a slow climate response)
-
scaddenp at 07:02 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Sapient Fridge. Me too. It's good to know the answer to that question. I also make it clear what reasonable evidence would convince me that climate theory has serious flaws.If no evidence is good enough or question avoided, then no point producing evidence or even a serious discussion. As far as I can see must pseudo-skeptics are politically-driven, convinced any solution might limit their "freedom", raise taxes, expand government, or heaven forbid, involve international cooperation. No point in a private argument, and for public arguments (blogs), only worth rebutting errors for the benefit of other listeners. -
rockytom at 05:06 AM on 6 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Just a note of positive congratulations to Kevin C and Bob Tisdale. This is an example of what this blog is about. No negatives here; just positives with the readers best interests in the science in mind. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:14 AM on 6 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
pauls: Do you have a reference showing that a "GCM with a realistic model of the ocean" is run in a mode where it only uses a slab ocean that is "little more than a surface with a low heat capacity"? Such "swamp models" were very common in the early days of GCMs (i.e., back in the 1960s and 1970s - remember: I'm "ancient") due to computational issues, but I can't see how it would be of any use to develop a fully-coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM to investigate how climate reacts when full ocean dynamics are included, and then shut off the ocean dynamics to investigate the long-term sensitivity. In other words, my hunch is that you're wrong, but my mind is open to whatever references and evidence you can provide. -
Bob Loblaw at 02:08 AM on 6 May 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
John: "ancient", when it comes to age, generally tends to follow the rule that anyone older than 10*(my age)^0.5 is "ancient". For the young whipper-snapper who is 30-31, square root of that times 10 is about 55, so I am ancient by his standards, as I just turned 55. When he was 16, 40-year-olds seemed "ancient" - and I would have been 40, so I was ancient to him back then, too. As I am old enough to remember discussing Hansen et al, 1981, in grad school, I must be really ancient. [By the time you get to be 100, you are ancient.] -
ajki at 01:09 AM on 6 May 2012There's no empirical evidence
Within chapter "CO2 traps heat" is a pdf download link to: Philipona, R., B. Dürr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild (2004), Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765. The pdf is not (directly, May 2012) reachable through the link (agu.org). I did not check wether it is paywalled or requires registration/login before reading. Link to the abstract page on agu.org Currently (May 2012) Dr Marty provides the pdf over his personal page on slf.ch (WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF). Since this is one of the "directly measured" evidence papers cited by many (IPPC 2007, Rahmstorf&Schellnhuber...), there should be a safer and better accessible place for it. -
muoncounter at 00:18 AM on 6 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Unfortunately, victull's claim is too ambiguous to seriously debunk. 'Doubts there's been surface temp increase' ... siince ...when? The end of the last glacial maximium? Last December? It is exactly this type of 'throw-down' denial that shows the weakness of the denialist position. And shows how easy the deniers think it is to fool the average person with vague claims. That's how we know we're right! -
Daniel Bailey at 23:49 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Actually, michael, victull has set up a straw man argument. The straw part is the undefined term "serious skeptic". As most understand the term, true Skepticism means using the scientific method to assess the known data and physics to derive the explanation that best-fits the totality of the data. Of course, this means real scientists are the real skeptics. And the vast majority of them accept AGW as a robust scientific theory (as shown by the vast hosts of scientific organizations and bodies, whose members number legion, who have issued position statements accepting AGW). Thus, the "serious skeptics" do not include the like of the fake-skeptics. Like Heartland groups, their minions and their paid puppets. Those who now fight a rear-guard, hand-waving battle of delay. Like claiming:"No serious skeptic really doubts that there has been surface temperature increase, nor that CO2 has radiative properties which may slow down heat loss."
As all who have not been asleep for the past several decades know full well, victull postulates an empty, vainglorious pile of straw. Bereft of citation or substance. -
michael sweet at 23:12 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Victull, You have quite a list of hand-waving assertions. Care to provide any links or references for them? Provide links to AGW catastrophists you think need to be dismissed and why their claims are aurtageous. If you leave out the skeptics who concede surface temperature increase and CO2 radiative properties not many are left. Can you provide a list of who these remaining deniers are? What are their remaining doubts? Provide links to arguments that support their positions. Hand waving claims can be dismissed with a hand wave. -
JimF at 23:03 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Sapient Fridge@10 I like your second question, so I will add it to mine. And you are right that it seems as if nothing will change their minds. I think that we all should realize the difficulty it puts on the believer side when they debate this issue vs. the skeptic side on the national stage. For those who watch and have not made up their minds they see one side say "We are not absolutely sure, but we THINK..." and the other side say "We are 100% sure and the other side is LYING..." Its much easier to then side with those who say they are sure and appeals to emotion, rather than the side that is not sure and appeals to scientific study. Just my take on it. -
victull at 22:58 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
No serious skeptic really doubts that there has been surface temperature increase, nor that CO2 has radiative properties which may slow down heat loss. Where there is serious doubt is whether the planet's energy imbalance is currently growing or shrinking and the magnitude of the component forcings. Shrinking presents problems for the magnitude of CO2 and feedback effects especially clouds. There has been alarmism on both sides of the AGW debate. The looney skeptics should be discounted in the same breath as the AGW catastrophists. -
Sapient Fridge at 21:14 PM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
JimF, I have tried asking fake skeptics "What observation, real or hypothetical, would convince you that global warming is happening?", or "If global warming were really happening then what do you think would be different from what we see today?" They are good questions because if they say nothing would persuade them, or ignore the question, then it shows that their viewpoint is not evidence based i.e. no evidence would ever convince them, no matter what. A common response is for them to start handwaving like miniature windmills, or ask for impossible data e.g. sunspot counts going back to the age of the dinosaurs. The closest I got to a real response was someone who said that if global warming was really happening then the temperature rise would be much faster than it is. For that person at least I think the observations they want will arrive in the coming decades... -
scaddenp at 13:19 PM on 5 May 2012CO2 lags temperature
Islander, your comments seem to imply you think all ice ages should be equal? However, the milankovitch forcings driving the glacial cycle vary because of the superposition of cycles. To see this, have a look at the graph and discussion here. Also worth having a read of Berger and Loutre 2002 to see some idea of the factors in whether the forcings trigger an ice age or not. There is a 5 part series discussing comparisons with the last interglacial here. -
Tom Curtis at 10:59 AM on 5 May 2012Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
BC @57, mixing of the deep ocean takes hundreds of years, in part because of the very slow exchange between deep ocean and surface except in the North Atlantic, and Antarctic Ocean; and in part because of the much greater volume of the deep ocean compared to the surface, with the deep ocean having approximately 5 times the volume of surface layers. After the deep ocean and surface reach equilibrium for CO2 concentration, CO2 concentrations will continue to reduce due to the weathering of rocks and the deposition of carbon rich skeletal remains in sediment at the bottom of the ocean. This process takes thousands of years. In this image, showing the results of various models, the initial rapid reduction is due to equilibriation in the ocean, while the long slow reduction that follows is due to geochemical sequestration.
-
Dragonwyst at 10:41 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
I don't usually comment because of being "just a nurse", however, reading Part 1 and part 2 shows something rather glaring to me. It is the difference between the way a scientist in the field presents a considered approach and the way the media reports anything. I was in the audience (somewhere at the back where no-one could recognise me on TV it seems) for the Q & A and documentary titled "Can I Change Your Mind About Climate Change". One thing I took away from that was the comment ( can't rememember who exactly said it - most likely Rebecca Huntley) that we cannot sustain a fear response. Media reporting is designed to evoke emotional, even visceral, responses. This, I think, more than anything has driven the polarization of responses to the information. I have also recently consumed, with great glee, the book "Wilful Blindness" by Margaret Heffernan. In the early chapters she shows how people who are presented clear evidence refuting sometimes rather bizarre beliefs, don't change their beliefs, but instead become more extreme and polarized. There needs to be substantial internal discord before change is possible. Somewhere between media-fuelled reporting and the drivers of wilful blindness lies the reason so many people find it difficult to keep an open mind. What saddens me is knowing that for some people the fear element is a real, very-close-to-home factor as they lose their fresh water to salty seas. More than anything, there need to be new ways to communicate that don't rely on strategies that polarize and feed wilful blindness. -
Hopeful at 09:57 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
I think the absolutism in the arguments of the "skeptics" needs to be pointed out. It is not consistent with scientific thinking/reasoning for a start as you said Rob. And the lay "skeptics" think in absolutes also. Cognitive behaviour therapy/rational emotive therapy is about learning to drop the absolutism (never,always,all,none) and people labelling (left wing conspirators, anti-progress greenies)and thinking more realistically about specific issues. The consequence of more realistic thinking is more constructive behaviour and feelings. The skills of realistic rational thinking are life skills which enhance self efficacy in challenging situations. I think "skeptics" need to become more aware of their irrational,absolutist and unrealistic thinking ie " ALL the lines of peer reviewed evidence supporting AGW theory are completely wrong as are all the leaders in the relevant sciences and all their expert organisations and I will never accept any evidence supporting AGW theory and become very angry when lefty greeny alarmists talk about reducing emissions". A more realistic rational way to think is "There is now a very large body of peer reviewed evidence across multiple lines of investigation supporting AGW theory. The leaders in science and their expert organisations are confident that AGW is unlikely to be wrong. It is therefore unrealistic for me to expect that all the peer reviewed evidence and leading scientists are wrong and that all people who accept this evidence are lefty greeny alarmists. Since most of the warming has been bought about by using fossil fuel energy to create wealth and prosperity in the developed world over the last 150 years and the significant threat AGW poses to human health,food security, geopolitical stability and the biosphere, it is prudent and responsible to bring together our best brains and expertise to plan and implement risk management strategies, to reduce emissions as quickly as possible and to disengage with politicisation of the issue. I understand that this will cost money but am not prepared to leave a legacy of irreversible climate disruption to the next generation". It would be nice if a reasoned statement was made for people to publicly declare whether or not they agree so their children who will face the consequences will know whether their aging parents were part of the problem or part of the solution and signalled for government to act on their behalf on this issue.Moderator Response: TC: All capitals converted to bold for compliance with the comments policy. Compliance is not optional, and we do appreciate your cooperation in this. -
BC at 08:49 AM on 5 May 2012Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
DSL. Thanks for the links. I'll do some browsing, which may take me a while. I've read much of the first link in your blog on the 2 May post, and the rest look good too. What I'm interested in reconciling for myself are these two facts 1. the large ocean flows can move heat quite effectively on decadal timeframes, as explained in this post 2. CO2 doesn't get mixed quickly in the oceans, despite these flows, and CO2 absorption only happens at century and thousands of years timescales - "mixing of shallow and deep oceanic waters takes place over hundreds to thousands of years" - SKS post 2 May,-"Two centuries of Climate Science". So the oceans don't absorb as much as was expected in the past; hence the atmospheric build up that is occurring -
JimF at 06:21 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Not being a scientist, my discussions with friends and skeptics here in the US tend to be less clinical and much more philosophical, I think. But I do like to ask them one question: "What would it take to change your mind from being a skeptic to a believer?" Is there a scientific organization, a temperature, a climatic series of events, or anything that will make them consider the reality of AGW? I never get an answer, which leads me to believe that nothing short of a tag on CO2 molecules which says "from car exhaust" will ever change their minds. I tell them that if trusted scientific organizations such as NAS or AGU become skeptics, I will change my mind. Or if my candytufts bloom on Mother's Day like they used to rather than 2 weeks earlier like they have for the past number of years, I will change my mind. But I can't even get them to even consider the question. Which tells me they are VERY sure that they are right. Or even unwilling to consider the alternative. -
DSL at 05:38 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Yah, it's important to remember that Heartland knows quite well that the logic is flawed. They're not actually stupid. They know that even though most people will reject the logic, they'll also carry forward the unconscious association. And now, of course, the internet is blasting that association all over the place, inadvertently serving to further Heartland's interests. Heartland should be characterized as anti-democratic because their stated goal is to increase doubt. The hoaxers will undoubtedly agree that the logic is spot on but that Heartland shouldn't have exposed themselves to the liberal media (this is the WUWT response). -
Composer99 at 05:15 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
I'm surprised Monckton didn't make the list of speakers. As for the billboards, the empty, flawed logic behind them is easily exposed and disposed of with the following argument: Heartland Billboard Argument P - The Unabomber (and other undesireable characters) claimed it is important to combat climate change C - Therefore, people who claim it is important to combat climate change are like the Unabomber Analagous Argument P - Hitler owned and loved dogs C - Therefore, people who own and love dogs are like Hitler I'd say the billboard campaign makes it very obvious that the Heartland Institute is indeed engaged in scientific denialism rather than any honest skepticism. If they had a strong case to make using scientific evidence, they'd never have had to resort to such a foolish endeavour to begin with. -
Islander at 04:01 AM on 5 May 2012CO2 lags temperature
If the Milankovitch forcing triggers the beginning (and end) of interglacial periods with the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses providing the positive (and negative) amplification, then I think that it is very important to understand why the heating at the beginning of the Holocene ended short of the previous maximum temperature of the previous four interglacial periods. The benign temperature stability of the Holocene is a major factor in the development of civilization which arguably might not have happened at a higher (or lower) temperature. I haven't seen an argument as to why the heating ended prematurely. Can you direct me to relevant research? -
vrooomie at 03:47 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Dikran@5: It may be that, to *us*, but to many who are 'on-the-fence' about the so-called "controversy" (and, in my position as an earth scientist, I see it {snip}, even from colleagues) it may {snip} slow down) efforts to make this critical science issue as effective as they must be, if we're to get any real handle on slowing down the depradation of our planet. I've been to this horse race before, in the automotive industry, and shibbolths and outright lies persist. They *especially* perdsist if not foguth, hard and forcefully, with facts, data, and clear rationale. As scienctists and activists, we have but a few tools at our disposal, and one is {snip}, when they make foolish moves, like HI has done, and undoubtedly will continue to do. As a practicing scientist (trained classicallly, raised in the classical 'rational and dispassionate' scientific bent) to be confrontational towards efforts like HI, Koch Industries, you name it, is a bit crosswise to that training. However, when battling fire...sometimes, as Wag Dodge found out in Montana, in 1949, you *must* use fire to fight it. It can be done non-ad hominem style, but {snip} be done with the full force of factual analysis. So, like BoulderBob in another thread, I'm {snip}Moderator Response: TC: All caps snipped, for compliance with the comments policy. Given the extent of all caps in this post, it would have been much easier to just delete the post. Please read and comply with the comments policy in future posts to avoid that possibility. Thank you. -
pbjamm at 03:15 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Here is the list of speakers: http://climateconference.heartland.org/speakers/ I don't think any comment can be made that would do more damage to the credibility of the Conference than that list does. -
Kevin C at 02:28 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Thanks. While we're at it, I've spotted another detail I forgot to describe to the text. I added an offset of -0.03C to the red line in Figure 3 to highlight the similarity between the change in the adjustments and the change in the final data series. This offset comes from the net change in the mean over the baseline period. Some of the residual differences are presumably also attributable to the new methods, however I don't think that the remaining differences can be isolated using just the published data. -
Bob Tisdale at 02:14 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Kevin C: Kennedy et al (2011) was a two-part paper. You've only provided a link to part 2 at the end of your opening. The first part is here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf -
KR at 02:12 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
pbjamm - I would agree; it's the Argument Clinic. This is one of the purest examples of the Argument by Association fallacy I have ever seen. Heartland is shooting itself in the foot with this - I cannot imagine what they thought this would accomplish. I guess this just demonstrates that the 'skeptic' side, the ones arguing that there is no problem, have no factually based arguments left... -
Kevin C at 02:11 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Original introduction:The Hadley centre of the UK Meteorological office has for a number of years maintained a dataset of sea surface temperatures (SSTs), HadSST2, which has formed the basis for estimating global surface temperatures. The HadSST2 dataset was used in the widely quoted HadCRUT3 temperature record, as well as forming the basis for an interpolated record, HadISST, which is used along with ERSST in NASA's GISTEMP record. The source data is the International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS), which includes historical records from many sources.
Updated introduction:The Hadley centre of the UK Meteorological office has for a number of years maintained a dataset of sea surface temperatures (SSTs), HadSST2, which has formed a basis for estimating global surface temperatures. The HadSST2 dataset was used in the widely quoted HadCRUT3 temperature record, as well as providing the in-situ sea surface temperature component of HadISST since 2007. HadISST is used along with Reynold's OISST in NASA's GISTEMP record. The source data are versions of the International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS), which includes historical records from many sources.
-
Kevin C at 01:54 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Bob: You certainly know more about the background material than me. I'm new to SST data and have not studied the history, or the other datasets in any depth. I'll check the background and update the post accordingly. As to the rest of the post, it is almost entirely a review of the Kennedy paper, and so should be less dependent on my limited (and flawed) background reading. -
Bob Tisdale at 01:29 AM on 5 May 2012HadSST3: A detailed look
Kevin C writes in the first paragraph of the post, “The HadSST2 dataset was used in the widely quoted HadCRUT3 temperature record, as well as forming the basis for an interpolated record, HadISST, which is used along with ERSST in NASA's GISTEMP record.” Error 1: HADSST2 and HADSST3 are based on different ICOADS datasets. Error 2: HADISST was introduced the 2003 Rayner et al paper “Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century.” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf HADSST2 was introduced 2 years later in Rayner et al (2005) “Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature Measured In Situ since the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset”. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst2/rayner_etal_2005.pdf So your claim that HADSST2 formed “the basis for an interpolated record, HadISST” is obviously wrong. Error 3: GISS uses HADISST from January 1880 to November 1981 and NOAA’s Reynolds OI.v2 SST data from Dec 1981 to present, not the NOAA ERSST.v3b data. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html Would you like me to read the rest of your post? -
Pete Dunkelberg at 01:25 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Rob, Dana, Andy, sometimes ordinary language is better than philosophy 101. I hope you're sure that it is unwise to jump off tall buildings, unwise for kids to take up smoking, and unwise for earth's humans to greatly increase the amount of greenhouse gasses blanketing our one planet, and unwise to persist in acidifying the oceans. btw a prominent link to the OA not OK pdf would be nice. It might be added to the little rectangular image as the letters 'pdf'. -
pbjamm at 00:57 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Sadly there are people who believe this stuff. I have argued with them in the past. Through most of it I thought I had chosen the wrong door in the Argument Clinic. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 00:50 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Lucas Verma @ 1 Mind your words. 3°C is not a rate, it is equilibrium sensitivity. Transient sensitivity is closer to the idea of a rate. -
BoulderBob at 00:45 AM on 5 May 2012Why Are We Sure We're Right? #2
Now, I'm angry: Heartland Billboard CampaignModerator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Better just to raise ones eyebrows and shake ones head in sadness, at least for the blood-pressure! The weekly digest thread is probably more appropriate for further discussion. -
Daniel Bailey at 00:35 AM on 5 May 2012Richard Alley - We Can Afford Clean Energy
All participants please note: Realist is just another sock puppet of Delmar/Tealy and will be dealt with accordingly. In the meantime, DNFTT and please return to your normal conversational activities. Have a noice day (pun intended). -
DSL at 00:30 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Oh, am I going to have fun with this one across the internets. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:21 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
IMHO they have just scored an own goal. It is so obviously mere rhetoric that anyone with more than half a brain will see it immediately for what it is an will feel vaguely insulted that the HI should think something so lacking in subtlety would fool anybody. Of course it could be ironic humour, but somehow I doubt it. -
pbjamm at 00:12 AM on 5 May 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #17
Hot sure where else to put this but it is so crazy that it has to be posted. Other readers of Climatecrocks will prob already have seen this. http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/ "Scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming is collapsing. Most scientists and 60 percent of the general public (in the U.S.) do not believe man-made global warming is a problem. (Keep reading for proof of these statements.) The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." We are through the looking glass... -
DSL at 23:55 PM on 4 May 2012Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
BC, note the "related SkS posts" links at the bottom of the article above.
Prev 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 Next
