Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 Next
Comments 59701 to 59750:
-
skywatcher at 12:09 PM on 28 April 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Vinnikov on Arctic Sea Ice
Chris, you're welcome! Your googling skills are also much superior to mine, will bookmark the paper. L Hamilton - very interesting graph indeed, and interesting to visualise how similar the trends are in that context. -
Delmar at 11:50 AM on 28 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
So for these people, the argument "why don't you believe the scientists?", falls of deaf ears. Its not a meaningful question. It's not in their makeup. These people need to see the evidence first hand. -
L. Hamilton at 11:09 AM on 28 April 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Vinnikov on Arctic Sea Ice
@Skywatcher, Chris G: Regarding the ice-edge latitude data of Eisenman (2010) -- a while back I drew this cycle plot showing its distinct upward trend across every month and season: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/Cycle_Arctic_latitude_1.png
Moderator Response: [Sph] Image embedded and hotlinked. -
Delmar at 10:07 AM on 28 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Doug Yes there was some interesting information that would not be available through other forums, and in particular the person who for 10 years had researched and analysed the public psych snd views on climate change. The interesting point I found was that denialists tend to distrust information from experts, no matter what the topic, while warmists do trust experts. This is the psychological makeup of people that will not be changed from arguing or shouting. It's the makeup of people who when they don't like a doctors diagnosis, they get a second opinion from an unrelated doctor on the other side it town. -
Doug Hutcheson at 09:44 AM on 28 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
The object of the show was not to investigate the evidence, but to expose the reasons why people adhere to their points of view and to show how difficult it is to get people to change their minds. Anna showed Nick the science, because she agrees with it; Nick showed Anna the spin, because that is what he agrees with. Nick is not interested in the science and Anna is not interested in the spin. This clearly shows the cognitive divide between deniers and accepters and, to that extent, it met the objectives of the producers. The subsequent QandA session was just another example of how to muddy the waters of scientific research by making it appear that the topic can fairly be debated by non-scientists. The one scientist on the panel was not trying to debate the science, but was trying to move the discussion to the theme of responses to climate change and that is a topic which can fairly be debated by the body politic. Billionaire Clive Palmer was there to represent the fossil fuels industry, so his reliance on discredited memes was unsurprising. Altogether, the two programmes did not advance the science one iota and almost certainly did not change anybody's mind about AGW, but that was not what they were trying to achieve: they were all about exposing entrenched positions and they succeeded in doing so. -
Delmar at 09:31 AM on 28 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
The ABC is government owned and considered left wing. At times left politicians have been recruited from the ABC. The media doesn't get any better than the ABC, the other stations are commercial and without doubt worse. This is a good as it gets under democracy. It will be 2 decades when we are surrounded by an irreversible and unstoppable climatic disaster before democracy is capable of action. The australian government can take immediate action today - it can prohibit coal exports increasing, instead the government has been expanding coal export wharves. Yet there was not one protestor when the ports were expanding. The quantity of coal exported from Australia is mind boggling. Democracy is the problem. -
LukeW at 09:30 AM on 28 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Anna's knowledge of the topic was pretty mediocre and she fluffed it every time it got serious. Megan Clarke was using well rehearsed lines after her media training. CSIRO avoiding the stasis in warming by going to a decadal mean meme. But it all probably rated well as it was only entertainment. Jo Nova and David Evans should have been let go much longer and some back room lads and lassies from CSIRO and BoM let loose to talk REAL science. Could have done some serious analysis of alternative energy including nuclear with Prof Barry Brooks. But instead another unconvincing bit of info-tainment paff with celebrities. Clive Palmer didn't give a rats - it was all just profile. All rubbish really. -
Doug Hutcheson at 09:21 AM on 28 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
The time-line graphic is a good answer to those who who have been misled into thinking that AGW theory is all about computerised climate models. The article in American Scientist that muoncounter links @ 6 is behind a paywall, unfortunately, but the abstract is tantalising. The degree of sophistication in scientific experiments two hundred years ago still has the capacity to surprise me. What the early investigators discovered, using primitive equipment by today's standard, is remarkable. -
muoncounter at 08:10 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
To get at the tar sands through open pit operations, you first take out the surface soils. In the Athabasca, "the overburden consists of water-laden muskeg (peat bog) over top of clay and barren sand." In considering carbon impact, SW12 leaves out this minor detail, which was more fully analyzed by Rooney et al 2011; Contrary to claims made in the media, peatland destroyed by open-pit mining will not be restored. Current plans dictate its replacement with upland forest and tailings storage lakes, amounting to the destruction of over 29,500 ha of peatland habitat. Landscape changes caused by currently approved mines will release between 11.4 and 47.3 million metric tons of stored carbon and will reduce carbon sequestration potential by 5,734–7,241 metric tons C/y. -
vrooomie at 07:15 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Ian@13: there is also the proposed natural gas pipeline, all the way from my home county of weld, in Colorado ("Got gas? We'll drill for it!!") all the way to the Gulf...from my house, I can see the excavations beginning. http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_20385630/natural-gas-pipeline-run-from-weld-county-texas What could go wrong with *that*? ={;-( -
vrooomie at 07:10 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Pierre@9: Well said! I've heard it a slightly different way... "Not *MY* fault!", screams every flake in an avalanche..... -
Ian Forrester at 07:00 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Andy, you mentioned at the start of your article the proposed pipelines, Keystone and Northern Gateway. Don't forget about the one that is managing to stay under the radar, the twinning of Kinder Morgan's Transmountain Pipeline which would increase its capacity by aprox 500,000 barrels per day of dil-bit. At present it carries about 350,000 bpd of a mixture of products, crude oil, refined and semi-refined products in what they call a "batch train". This pipeline goes straight into the greater Vancouver area. There have been a number of spills in this system recently. The importance of pipeline capacity is that it is very cheap (relatively speaking) to set up a surface mine or SAGD operation but it is very expensive to build an upgrader. Thus these pipelines will allow much more rapid expansion than if the bitumen was upgraded and refined in Alberta. Just in today's Herald it was pointed out that Alberta lost $18 billion dollars last year because of the price differential between heavy-oil/bitumen and conventional crude. -
Daniel Bailey at 06:33 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
To follow-on to Pierre-Emmanuel line of reasoning, greenwashing the Tar Sands is like this:
-
Andy Skuce at 06:25 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr@9 I agree, using that argument is foolish. I think that was what Mark Jaccard (see the last section of my article) was getting at with his mention of the "fallacy of composition". My favourite analogy is that of a schoolboy arguing that he shouldn't be stopped from peeing in the swimming pool because it makes hardly any difference compared to the whole school doing it. What I was trying to show was not that such an argument is silly--although it is--but that it is, in any case, wrong. -
Paul Magnus at 05:56 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/26/471985/tar-sands-production-in-america-is-closer-than-you-think/ Absolute madness... Keeps the president and delusion going. -
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr at 05:48 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
I found this article interesting, but I couldn't help thinking that, by its careful and in-depth analysis, it might turn a ludicrous denialist argument into a serious one, that would actually be worthy of a scientific debate. Basically, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, we're being told in the newspapers you quoted that tar sands extraction in Canada is not a problem... when you compare it to worldwide extraction of carbon-containing materials! If you accept this approach, then no crime is problematic anymore. You just need to compare it to worldwide statistics, and a murder or a rape, for example, becomes a crime on only 0,0000...00001 % of the human population, a gas-guzzling car, compared to 1 billion other cars, is no problem either, etc. By the same token, no coal mine on its own, no oil field on its own, no country on its own, is a problem for the climate, while at the same time all together lead to the destruction of the said climate... I seems to me that even before your careful analysis, if indeed it was needed and not counter-productive, you should point out that the very idea of comparing tar sands in Canada to worldwide pollution of the climate is in and of itself clownish. -
BKsea at 05:33 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
I find the argument that we should stop tar sands exploitation to prevent emissions to be unconvincing. What we need is to reduce total emissions not where they are coming from. If we prevent exploitation of one resource, we will just increase exploitation of another resource. Yes, this may have some effect through higher prices, but that effect depends on the elasticity of demand. I believe demand is fairly insensitive to price of oil. Trying to prevent tar sand exploitation reminds me of the US efforts to fight drugs by going after coca farmers in South America. It may have had a small effect through higher prices, but it mainly made the drug traffickers richer without much influence on drug consumption. What is needed are policies that target total demand. Then, as stated toward the end of post #6, tar sands will not be developed because they are uneconomical. -
Andy Skuce at 05:32 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Great comment, Rust, thank you. Yes, it's the cumulative carbon targets that are the important ones to emphasize: they are scientifically robust, easy to grasp and hard to manipulate. One thing I didn't get into above is the political dimension, here in Canada . Deep Climate has a good couple of posts showing the incompatibility between Canada's emissions targets and the plans for scaling up bitumen production. On one hand, we have the government promising significant emissions cuts and on the other hand promising the Premier of China that bitumen production will ramp up to 6 million barrels per day and that there will be pipelines available for export to the Pacific. So, we have to wonder, would Stephen Harper rather deceive Canadians concerned about climate change or the government of China? Answers on a postcard please... Now it appears that the Alberta Government's plan to mitigate emissions though carbon capture and storage is falling apart. Not due to technical shortcomings but instead to the lack of a sufficiently stringent carbon price (the current price is $15/tonne on "excess" emissions). As you say: they are highly motivated to downplay both the need for constraints, and the impact of their particular resource on the dilemma in total. This will become ever more acute as the economy of the country becomes increasingly dependent on bitumen exports; the government's temptation to double down and deny the science as a means of avoiding regulation will become irresistible. -
rustneversleeps at 04:49 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Nice piece, as always Andy. Although all of the emission pathways, extraction choices, etc., are inherently incredibly complex, I find incredibly frustrating the morass of terminologies and metrics we use. In my naive opinion, we should be looking at all of these choices in the context of "carbon budget" or "cumulative emissions" approaches, such as that developed for TriliionthTonne.org, based on Allen et al. (2009), Meinshausen et al. (2009), and others. Ultimately, the signficance (or not) of bitumen extraction and combustion needs to be assessed in the context of the remaining carbon budget. In fact, I think that is the scientifically credible "denominator" that needs to be used for all of these sources. And I think that is largely where your piece (and Neil's commentary) start to lead. But since I am typing now anyway, if you take the trillionthonne.org base case - assuming a 50% likelihood of avoiding a 2°C temperature rise - then we have about a 443 GtC remaining budget. And that is from ALL of fossil fuels, land use change, deforestation and cement. If you assume that fossil fuel combustion alone gets an 80% share of that budget, then you are left with 354 GtC. According to the Carbon Tracker Initiative "proven" reserves of carbon for coal, oil and gas are - respectively - about 500 GtC, 170 GtC and 100 GtC. (On the last page of SW12, their estimates for "reserves" are 614, 158 and 107 GtC, respectively, but close enough for my point here.) The Carbon Tracker numbers exclude "probable" and "possible" reserves, and obviously the SW12 reserves are a small subset of "resources". My point is that we are going to address the global commitments of the Copenhagen accord in a scientifically credible way, then you have all of those reserves - and a lot of more potential - of carbon trying to squeeze into that remaining budget. All of a sudden, a bitumen expoitation over the century of 22.5 GtC is 6.3% of the remaining budget of 343 GtC for fossil fuels. Or, if one were to assumen that "oil" were to get a remaining share of the budget equal to it's current emissions share of about 33%, then bitumen would be claiming almost a 22.5/(33% * 354) = 19%. (A share that I don't think the rest of the world's oil producers would endorse; nor would they sit by idly in terms of pricing while the oil sands production ate up their remaining share of budget!) My point is that any sort of analysis that uses a "remaining carbon budget" as the denominator (instead of reserves, or resources, or current emissions share, etc.) starts to put the potential impact of bitumen production at much higher percentages. And I seriously think that this is the only scientifically credible "denominator" there is if we are serious about tackling climate change. Which is why, of course, as you note, the case "for the oil sands industry seems fairly narrow and mostly involves hoping that climate policy will fail." I am going to finish with a quote from the MIT study you reference: "with CO2 emissions (constraints) implemented worldwide, the Canadian bitumen production becomes essentially non-viable even with CCS technology, at least through our 2050 horizon. The main reason for the demise of the oil sands industry with global CO2 policy is that the demand for oil worldwide drops substantially. CCS takes care of emissions from the oil sands production, upgrading, and refining processes, at a cost, but there is so little demand for petroleum products which still emit CO2 when used that it can be met with conventional oil resources that entail less CO2 emissions in the production process." My highlights. If one were to engage in a bit of game theory, you can certainly see that in a climate change policy world of serious carbon constraints, owners of bitumen resources would be severely impacted. So they are highly motivated to downplay both the need for constraints, and the impact of their particular resource on the dilemma in total. So, I think we need to always keep bringing the issue back to some sort of carbon budget denominator (or similar) metric. Not just for bitumen, for all of our carbon choices. And although I think that was the underlying message of SW12, I appreciate your work here, Andy, it making it so much more explicit. Cheers. -
Neil_Swart at 04:28 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Yes, thanks Andy, that is fair, you certainly do mention it. I suppose I mean in general the size and implications of the North American carbon footprint from tarsands that we calculate has not been reported (particularly in the popular media). In essence, the conclusion is "if the populations of the USA and Canada were to extensively utilize the Alberta oil-sands proven reserve, it would almost certainly be incompatible with doing a globally equal share (85 tC) in keeping warming below 2°C. " -Neil -
Andy Skuce at 04:11 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Thanks for dropping by and commenting, Neil. To be clear, I did refer, in my concluding paragraph, to your discussion of carbon footprints: Swart and Weaver take pains to demonstrate, both in the paper and in more detail on Swart's website, the outsized contribution that bitumen exploitation will make to North America's carbon footprint I agree that many commentators only reported what they wanted to hear and misrepresented your overall message. -
Chris G at 03:50 AM on 28 April 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Vinnikov on Arctic Sea Ice
Skywatcher, Thanks! Knowing that something like that already existed was a critical step. From there, it did not take very long, at all. Tamino has On Ice with a Twist which leads directly to Geographic muting of changes in the Arctic sea ice cover -
Neil_Swart at 03:36 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Thanks Andy for this insightful article. There is one thing that I would like to point out. Discussion of this paper has largely centered around Figure 1, and inferred that it is a comparison of oil-sands to other fossil fuels, and in this context that oil sands are not too bad. In fact this was not the intention. If you read the text of SW12, we calculate that North American usage of the tarsands would lead to massive per capita carbon footprints, although this point is barely reported anywhere (including here). We never state anywhere that tarsands emissions are "negligible", but rather the opposite, with statements like "The eventual construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would signify a North American commitment to using the Alberta oil-sand reserve, which carries with it a corresponding carbon footprint [ of 64 tonnes / person ]." But recognizing that North Americans only comprise 5% of the global population we then state "...many other sources of fossil fuels will also be needed if growing Chinese, and indeed worldwide, energy demand is to be met through the exploitation of fossil fuels." We calculate the potential for warming of other resources to compare them with the 2°C 'guardrail', not necessarily with each other . That is, we recognize that people in other parts of the world do not have tarsands themselves, but if they follow the Albertan example on hydrocarbon exploitation for energy, they will extract what is locally available to them. I believed this to be important because in and of themselves, the tarsands cannot take us over 2°C, BUT large scale extraction of fossil-fuels globally could lead us to exceed that limit many-fold. In other words, the message is "if we do this in Canada, we should expect that others globally will follow our example, in which case the warming will be large". This is discussed in detail at our website. -Neil -
John Hartz at 02:13 AM on 28 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Anna Rose penned a brief rebuttal article. “Climate change isn't a plot, it's science”, Sydney Morning Herald, Apr 27, 2012 -
John Russell at 02:13 AM on 28 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
It's difficult to comment because, being in the UK, I've not seen the show. However it seems to me that if, as Dana says, only 3 from Anna Rose's side got to speak against 5 from Minchin's, then the whole balance basis for the show was blatantly skewed. Also, from this clip, it seems like only the 'expert guests' did much speaking, so -- given that your average 'don't know' viewer doesn't really know what the 'experts' are talking about, then it seems that the whole take home message must be that there's a big disagreement about whether climate change is real. The lesson for all climate scientists must be: don't agree to appear on any programme unless you know for certain that the producers are -- at the very least -- neutral; or that it's a debate being transmitted live. Giving a 'Martin Durkin'-type 'sceptic' producer permission to make fast and loose with the scissors on your interview is a recipe for disaster. -
Andy Skuce at 01:46 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Ryan, thanks. You can find what you are looking for in the Supplementary Information for Swart and Weaver's paper which, I believe, is open access. The Matthews et al paper has more background on the delta T calculation methodology. -
RyanGainey at 01:13 AM on 28 April 2012Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”?
Excellent Article. Where do you get the numbers for converting bbl oil to gtC and TtC to deltaT? I've been looking for a sourced database of these constants for awhile. -
robday at 01:13 AM on 28 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
People looking for the missing Admiral Titley or Naomi Oreskes segments could have a look at their "web extras" page I assume they will work outside of Australia... -
Delmar at 21:45 PM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Well I am not the first to say it, but democracy is incapable of dealing with climate change. And the ABC removed any lingering doubts. -
Martin Lack at 18:42 PM on 27 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Chip (#51) says, "I am not an economist". I think I knew that. Neither am I but, unlike you, I do not second-guess genuine experts in any field. I acknoweldge that 'the marketplace of ideas' is a dangerous fallacy; and that climate change is not a hoax, a false alarm, or a potential benefit to humanity: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/worlds-biggest-watermelon-found-in-washington-dc/ -
Michael Whittemore at 17:18 PM on 27 April 2012Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
The stopping of the AMOC would have caused considerable warming, but very little of its effects would have been able to cause a global forcing as CO2 does. Without a prolonged global forcing from added CO2, the AMOC would have come back on after cooling of the north had reduced melting. This would have simply had caused the Earth to go back into the LGM as short lived GHG dissipated. Its seems so logical to see CO2 is the control knob of climate. -
Riccardo at 16:39 PM on 27 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
anthony the rate at which the ocean warms tells you what the earth imbalance is, not the forcing. You're confusing the two terms, they may look the same but they're not. The forcing gives you the imbalance produced by an agent (sun, GHG, etc.) while keeping the temperature constant and allowing no action by the feedbacks. The former tells you the actual energy imbalance while the system evolves. For example, immagine to apply a instantaneous constant forcing. At time t=0 the imbalance equals the forcing. At later times the planet warms and the imbalance gets smaller untill it's zero when the new equilibrium is reached. The 1.6 W/m2 from 1750 is the forcing and it would also be the imbalance if you magically prevented the planet to warm and the feedback to operate. But the planet has obviously warmed and the feedbacks operated; Levitus' imbalance tells you what is left to reach equilibrium. This is what someone call the warming in the pipeline. -
Tom Curtis at 16:00 PM on 27 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
trunkmonkey @19, autumn temperatures keep on rising after the peak of the summer sun has passed because they are still cooler than the equilibrium temperature for the current (autumn) insolation. When the equilbrium temperature for the current insolation drops below the actual temperatures, temperatures start to decline. That the ocean continues to warm therefore proves that the Earth has not reached its equilibrium temperature for the current forcing. The rise in insolation from the purported "grand solar maximum" is so slight that the Earth passed the equilibrium response to that increase long ago, and hence the reduction of insolation since the 1980s does not result in continued warming due to thermal inertia, but instead partially compensates for the increasing anthropogenic forcing. -
trunkmonkey at 15:45 PM on 27 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
One would expect the oceans with their massive heat capacity to continue warming after a diminution of "forcing" just as autumn temperatures lag the departure of the Summer sun. -
dana1981 at 13:23 PM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
bill @24 - indeed, the entire premise of the show was a bad idea. Minchin was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday as saying that the documentary was a “terrific opportunity to convey to an ABC audience that there remains a significant debate." So he flat-out admits that just by ABC airing the show he wins because it creates the impression of a "debate" where one does not exist. Apparently the program showed 5 'experts' from Minchin's side and 3 from Anna Rose's. If it were realistic, Anna Rose should have had 33 experts to Minchin's 1. Though Minchin's "experts" were a pretty sorry bunch. But the bottom line is that the audience comes away thinking there's a debate on the subject, so Minchin is right that he (meaning his agenda of sewing doubt and delaying action) automatically wins. -
Tom Curtis at 13:21 PM on 27 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
anthony @16, predictions of the equilibrium climate response include the Planck feedback function which you describe (and which is explained in more detail by Chris Colose here). So your argument amounts to the claim that a prediction which incorporates the Planck feedback cannot be realized because of the Planck feedback. I still remain mystified as to why self describe "skeptics" think that simply citing a well known physical effect which is incorporated into all Global Circulation Models (GCMs) (as both the Planck feedback and Beer's Law) will show the predictions of those GCMs to be false, without any need of calculation on their behalf. It is as though they thought yelling "But E=mc^2" would disprove the special theory of relativity. -
Bernard J. at 12:28 PM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Bill's point at #24 is pretty much the fact of the matter. As much as I admire Anna Rose's enthusiasm, the fundamental premise of the program was to use evidence to convince the opposing party of the error of their interpretation - to wit, "I can change your mind about climate". However, the actual exchange largely did not involve a critical analysis and subsequent discarding of the invalid material cherished by the denialists, and I (unsurprisingly) saw no consensus science refuted by the denialists, nor any acknowledgement of this fact. There were moments where refutation of denialist points did occur, but they were rare (when they should in fact have been the meat of the venture). Instead, Minchin and his agents were allowed to replay their fouls after a few minutes in the sin bin. If there had in fact been an impartial, objective analysis of the truth and the myth of climate science, each lie and inaccuracy would have been sequentially identified, examined, shown for its invalidity, and then not be permitted to be used again. Where such were raised after refutation, there should have been a red cross superimposed on the scene, with a reference to the refutation... heck, Skeptical Science's numbered points could have been used as a resource here... One of the most serious injustices of the show was that Anna and the producers allowed Minchin to frame the putative correct position to lie in the middle between two 'extremes'. There is no half-pregnant truth about scientific fact, and the IPCC summary that most use as a basis for discussion is a very conservative summary of the evidence. Further, the results of warming are not a single point in time and space: the longer and the more than humans continue to pollute the atmosphere with excess CO2, the closer we drive the final condition to the 'extremes' that (real) science unavoidably indicates will occur. As a follow-on from the previous paragraph, it's interesting to note that Minchin denies that he is denying science - he refers to himself as a sceptic (when he is in fact denying rather than exercising genuine scepticism) - whist simultaneously referring to scientists as "warmists". The term "warmists" is a propaganda-based one, calculated to convey the impression of people who are ideologically attached to the idea of human-caused warming of the magnitutde predicted by science. However the fact is that the conclusion simply emerges from the scientific evidence: it is not an emergence of ideology or of political inclination. Minchin is simultaneously trying to have his semantic cake and eat it. Changing the subject, vrooomie, be my guest! Just remember to account for the late-night mislabelling that I corrected at #15. -
ginckgo at 11:45 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
bill @ 24: I wholeheartedly agree. The whole call for "debates" is only ever going to result in a win for the deniers. Just like scientists no longer 'debate' creationists because it's like playing chess with pigeons, or mud wrestling a pig - however it goes, the other camp will always declare themselves the winners. Plus, the British style of debating is one of the most vile inventions I have ever had the misfortune to come across; purely antagonistic, noting is ever resolved, and in the end it all comes down to charisma, not facts - in other words the domain of demagogues. -
bill4344 at 11:31 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
The deniers won this debate the moment it was announced. There's a debate - so; there's a debate! Then all of the above. Can we please stop being so bloody naive about this? When you come from a political campaign background watching folks - no matter how earnest or charming - taking careful aim at their own feet gets very frustrating... Consider some truths of the world of campaigning. If you don't have the numbers - don't hold a rally! Do something creative and eye-catching instead. 20 people who know what they're doing can be far more effective than 2000 standing around with placards. If you do have a rally and you're likely to get 2000 people along - don't ever say you'll get 5000! Say 1500 and be thrilled that 'turn out was higher than expected'. Deploy the high estimate and News Limited will announce 'organiser's were disappointed with the low turnout'. Don't let the work-experience kid near a microphone, and establish a media policy that ensures only people who've been briefed on what to say speak to the media. Your media people are getting a message to the public and should dress and speak accordingly - that is, in a professional manner. Don't give the 'hostile' media cameras an opportunity to just hone in on the 'ferals' in order to represent the group. These are all things people I've worked with over the years will tell you they've learned from bitter experience. (Who knows, maybe some day our side will realise that sitting at home being right isn't going to be enough, and then these tips may be useful!) After the string of fiascos, such as 'debating' Monckton - kudos to Peter Hadfield for being the only antagonist to have worked out how to clearly demonstrate that he's all mouth and no trousers - here's some other suggestions: Send only your heavy-hitters to deal with the other side. Give them PR training just as every other public performer has to get. Don't set yourself up to be in a defensive position responding to a Gish Gallop welter of claims. Don't let vital points - such as 'it hasn't warmed for 15 years' or 'it's the volcanoes' - go unchallenged; this was so obviously going to come up, how could it possibly have got through? Don't let your position be represented by someone who's chief interest may well be a political defence of their institution, not the science. Make sure the 'live science' response blog will work! :-) And, most of all: Don't allow a scientific debate to be miscast as a rhetorical debate in the arena of infotainment. -
muoncounter at 11:29 AM on 27 April 2012Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one - Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Excellent article in the new issue of American Scientist about William Herschel's experiments with infra-red. He quickly realized (in 1800) that he'd have to isolate his thermometers from the effects of conduction and convection in order to study radiation. That's a lesson that many more modern would-be Galileos haven't figured out! Unfortunately, this article requires a subscription at the moment. -
Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
anthony - "Given this for CO2 forcing to continue to have a temperature effect must it increase at a greater than linear rate as well?" CO2 is increasing faster than exponentially, according to Tamino's analysis, meaning that forcing is increasing faster than linearly. Even linear forcing means the climate is in a constant state of catch-up - faster than linear forcing is not good news. -
anthony at 10:43 AM on 27 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Yes, I saw Tom's comment. There are 2 issues here; the forcing and the heat accumulation as a proxy for the delayed temperature stabilising effect which is the equilibrium sensitivity. In this respect is CO2 forcing mitigated by Stefan Boltzmann and Beers Law effects to such an extent that further increases in CO2 at a linear rate do not have further temperature increases, or at least only minimal ones. The reason for this is that Stefan Boltzmann effects are non-linear: From 200K-250K radiated energy increases from 91-222 W/m^2 – an increase of 131 W/m^2. From 300-350K radiated energy increases from 459-851 W/m^2 – an increase of 392 W/m^2. This is a result of T^4. Given this for CO2 forcing to continue to have a temperature effect must it increase at a greater than linear rate as well? And does this explain Levitus's finding of a reduced forcing for extra CO2? -
chriskoz at 10:13 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
Q&A show was disappointing, considering the panel participants. I'm especially disappointed with the attitude of Dr Megan Clark from CSIRO. With many myths fying around, she did not even try to correct any of them. For example, one question from the audience directed at her stipulated: "How do we know our CO2 emmitions are the largest? There are other CO2 emmission sources, i.e. volcanoes...". Megan knows for sure how misleading the last sentence is, so she should be able to debunk it with scientific facts and some hard numbers. But instead she's choosen not to give any facts but to repeat her cliche statement: "we are here to provide the research and not engage in policy discutions", as if she was told not to engage in any controversy because she must "stay neutral". However by staying neutral she kept silent when both panel members and an audience made incorrect claims. IMO, that's not responsible attitude of a sicentist, the only scientist in that panel. -
ginckgo at 10:12 AM on 27 April 2012ABC documentary demonstrates the how and why of climate denial
It appears that Nick has not learned a thing from the encounter, considering this commentary on The Age site. He even trots out the old "no warming since 1998" rubber duckie. And while his bias is so entrenched, he has the gall to accuse the ABC of being "not renowned for its balance on this subject". How very boring this is getting; I'm off to battle the Expanding Earthers. -
dana1981 at 09:59 AM on 27 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
anthony @14 - I would direct you to Tom Curtis' comment in the link you provide (the second comment), which points out where the argument Stockwell and Pielke are making is completely wrong. -
skywatcher at 09:36 AM on 27 April 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Vinnikov on Arctic Sea Ice
#7 Chris - what you say reminds me of a paper I saw where the researchers used something like the average latitude of the Arctic ice edge to estimate retreat rates. This cleverly gets around the problem of Asia and Canada being 'in the way'. IIRC, one interesting conclusion was that winter retreat is also rapid as the ice edge creeps northwards, but it does not show up so well in extent measures as the area of ice involved is smaller. Unfortunately I cannot recall enough about the paper (authors, title) to locate it for you, or remember specific details, strengths and weaknesses of the paper. -
michael sweet at 09:20 AM on 27 April 2012Weird Winter - March Madness
Jeff Masters referred to the "winter in April" theme TOP started today on his blog "At least 36 of the roughly 400 major U.S. cities that maintain automated weather sensors at their local airports (8%) have set or tied all-time April high temperature records so far this month; no all-time April cold records have been set. The U.S. has been on an extraordinary pace of setting high temperature records so far in 2012. During March 2012, an astonishing 32% of all the major airports in the U.S. set all-time March high temperature records. For the year-to-date, there have been 184 new all-time monthly high temperature records set at the major airports, and 6 all-time monthly low temperature records. Not surprisingly, the period January - March this year has been the warmest such period in the U.S. since record keeping began in 1895." This did not include the past 24 hours of records which had at least 6 monthly all time highs (but no low records). I cannot imagine why the press is not trumpeting all the cold! There is still 4 days left in April, perhaps we will have one cold record for the month. -
anthony at 09:05 AM on 27 April 2012Levitus et al. Find Global Warming Continues to Heat the Oceans
Forcing is not a product of time; with a temperature response to a sustained forcing over time, as is supposed by increases in CO2, the temperature response is itself a negative feedback to the continued forcing via Stefan Boltzmann effects. This would mean a measure of the effect of a forcing after that forcing has been active for some time should show a lessor temperature response which would be reflected in turn by a reduced forcing. In this respect Levitus's finding seem to be confirmatory. The other ramification is that this decline in forcing will mean that the predicted Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity temperature response in a few centuries time will not occur. David Stockwell is discussing this point here: http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/ -
scaddenp at 07:50 AM on 27 April 2012Renewables can't provide baseload power
It's worth noting too that Australia didnt go through NZ-style economic reforms in 80s, 90s so things are done differently. With economic "drys" in command in both parties over that period, NZ is a different place. I dont buy the idea that generation isn't built without a deal. If no generation is build, electricity price would soar - if a company doesnt move to catch that profit, then a competitor will. A variety of companies are building new generation. -
Bob Loblaw at 07:30 AM on 27 April 2012Global Warming Causing Heat Fatalities
Chip @62 uses an analogy of wolves killing sheep, and argues for protecting the sheep. A better analogy to global warming is a case where your neighbour is breeding wolves, and it's his wolves that are killing your sheep, not the one's nature left running around in the woods. It would appear that Chip thinks having the neighbour breeding wolves is good for your sheep farm, because it will force you to adapt and improve your defences against all wolves, including the small number that existed naturally. Why Chip doesn't think that stopping your neighbour from breeding wolves is a good idea, I can't say, but that's the analogy to his position on heat stress.
Prev 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 Next
