Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 Next
Comments 60601 to 60650:
-
dana1981 at 07:00 AM on 9 April 2012CO2 lags temperature
I just updated this rebuttal with some information (and 1 figure) from Shakun et al. (2012) which gives more information and nuance regarding the CO2-temperature interaction. We'll publish a post on the paper tonight. -
Chris G at 06:51 AM on 9 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Eric #7. IIRC, Lindzen focuses on albedo changes being more influential than GHC changes, but others have calculated that albedo changes were not nearly enough by themselves. In any case, we are seeing significant albedo changes as a result of GHC induced warming. So from a practical standpoint, positive feedbacks may make it so actual nature of the initial forcing matter little. -
keithpickering at 06:16 AM on 9 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Taking a cue from the Carbon Brief thread, isn't the term "CAGW" essentially a strawman rather than an actual scientific theory? Has anyone other than a climate skeptic actually used this as a term of art? It gets zero hits on Google Scholar. -
keithpickering at 06:13 AM on 9 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Biosphere response over the long-term must be a positive feedback, at at least in terms of albedo: as climate zones move poleward, they all shrink in area (due to latitude change) except for the equatorial rainforest zone. The shrinking zones include the bright polar zone and the bright subtropical desert zone, while the expanding rainforest is dark. -
threadShredder at 04:37 AM on 9 April 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
@Dikran Marsupial: I was wondering if anybody had taken a look at the comments of Singer's AT science-rewrite. The comments are truly something to behold in that people with absolutely no science background are so rock-solid cocksure of their convictions against scientists. (Here in the U.S., that goes also for certainly against learned authority in economics, health care, etc.) Thanks again for responding here and attempting to respond to Singer at AT. As for me, I'm continuing on through all the myth rebuttals here and trying to keep up with the posts as they come. Keep up the good work. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:18 AM on 9 April 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
@threadshredder, I have noticed over the years of discussing a variety of topics on USENET and the WWW that quite often delusions of this nature are often paradoxically strengthened by them being proven wrong. The one with the delusion is unable to accept the criticism and finds ways to dismiss it on any basis they can, rather than face the fact that they are wrong and are making a fool of themselves. Instead they percieve themselves as having won the argument, thus reinforcing the delusion. As it happens, I tried posting a reply to Prof. Singers latest nonsense in American Thinker, but it doesn't appear to have made it past the moderator. This is what I wrote: It is ironic that Prof. Singer accuses Mann of dishonesty when his use of the IPCC 1990 diagram as evidence of the MWP is deeply misleading. It is a schematic diagram (not data) of central england temperatures (not global) and the last point of the graph shows temperatures representative of the first half of the 20th century (so it doesn't show any of the warming that has ocurred since 1950 or so. See the appendix of this paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Jones_etal_2.pdf which discusses the origin of this diagram, and updates it using CET measurements up to 2007 (Figure 7), which shows that "recent measured warming may be comparable with presumed earlier warmth" (actually they are higher according to the graph, but Jones et al in usual scientific style avoid overstating the results). Prof Singer also fails to mention Wahl and Amman (2007) addressed the criticism of Mann's method and that other proxy analysis, constructed using other methods, produce essentially the same result, so why doesn't Prof. Singer criticise them as well? -
Joel_Huberman at 04:16 AM on 9 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
Many thanks to Andy S for a fascinating article. In follow-up to John Russell's comment @#11, the man who is "ahead of us", S. Matthew Liao of New York University, suggests several ways (mostly foolish, in my opinion) in which human beings might be "engineered" to diminish their impact on the climate and/or to diminish the impact of the climate on them. So far as I could tell when I skimmed through his paper on the subject, he did not suggest any method by which human beings could be made more heat-tolerant. Therefore the concerns raised by John Russell @#3, Bernard J @#8, and Riccardo @#10 still stand. -
threadShredder at 03:59 AM on 9 April 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
@Dikran Marsupial: Thanks for your reply and I understand completely. (Americans are, on many important topics, subjected to the right's nonsense day after day after... and are having a hard time with all of it.) But Singer has been refuted repeatedly on every topic for which he has taken up arms against the rest of the scientific community. There comes a time when Hanlon's razor becomes so dull from overuse that you just have to assume what explains Singer's constant going-against-the-grain is the unfortunate obvious. Nevermind what I think of Singer, and I do think of him as I've already indicated. In the end, that is unimportant. What I hope is that *every* time he takes to any microphone afforded him, he is responded to and shouted down with the scientific evidence. It is my guess that, at this point, these types of characters understand only one thing, and isn't going to be based on facts and reason, but their own self-analysis of their worth. That must take a hit. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:54 AM on 9 April 2012CO2 lags temperature
Eric, yes in the circumstances shown in figure 1 CO2 is acting as a feedback to Milankovic forcing, so it is unsurprising that CO2 lags temperature. So what? That doesn't mean that the current rise in CO2 is natural rather than anthropogenic (it is very straightforward to disprove that hypothesis). Also we don't have one hemisphere of CO2, CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, and it only takes a year or so for fossil fuel CO2 generated in the northern hemisphere to reach the southern hemisphere. -
John Mason at 03:49 AM on 9 April 2012Submerged Forests off the coast of Wales: a Climate Change Snapshot
Orcman, you are quite right, although the definition-as-accepted leaves some room for query - think of Sarn Helen, the Roman route up through Mid-Wales. When I crewed on the sea-angling boats out of Aberystwyth donkeys years ago the Sarn Cynfelyn reef, home of the black bream, was always called the Causeway by the local boys. There's a mark about 6 miles out along that reef that we all call The Wall, and when you go over it slowly on a boat with the sounder running you can immediately see why. Wants diving, one clear day. Almost certainly natural, but would be a good one to clear up! Cheers - John -
Eric (skeptic) at 03:35 AM on 9 April 2012CO2 lags temperature
Dikran, I agree it can be both. But there's not much uncertainty in FIgure 1 above; temperature leads and CO2 is a feedback because the best theory for cycles is tilt and eccentricity driving temperature (unless tilt and eccentricity drives CO2). I don't have a copy of the recent paper so I can't evaluate the claim that a hemisphere of CO2 drives two hemispheres of warming, but it doesn't make much sense to me. -
R. Gates at 03:23 AM on 9 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Eric @ #8, I don't think the biosphere response to the kinds of increases in CO2 that we've seen over the past few hundred years are known in great detail yet. Species migration and habitat changes may create a variety of effects that may be positive or negative feedbacks to the initial warming caused by CO2 increases. Ocean acidification is another potential biosphere related response. My point is that supposed "experts" in climate sensitivity, such as Monckton presents himself as cannot possibly known what the long-term climate sensitivity to any given increase in CO2 will be as they are so complex and varied. We've not yet seen the complete equilibrium response to 392 ppm of CO2, so how can anyone possibly know with the kind of certainty that Monckton parades around with what the 560 ppm will be? Probably the best line of research into coming close to estimating what the long-term response will be is looking at the climate of the mid-Pliocene or even Miocene periods, and in doing so, 3C seems quite a reasonable estimate for a doubling, if not a bit low. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:21 AM on 9 April 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
@threadshredder, Richard Feynman said "The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.". Sadly the human ability for self deception appears to be almost unlimited, and self-deception on a history of topics may simply be due to Prof. Singer's susceptibility, rather than deliberate dishonesty. There are a number of good reasons to opt for this interpretation: Firstly Hanlon's razor ("never attribute malice to that which can be adequately explained by thoughtlessness") and its variants is a good maxim for life, on the grounds that we should hope others adopt it when we are thoughtless, stupid or self-deluded. Secondly, it can lead us to disregard arguments as deception and not be open-minded. Thirdly, what really matters is the science and the science is strongly on our side; the "skeptics" know this and so insead try to focuss on rhetoric and making the discussion personal, so accusations of dishonesty are what they want you to do; stick to the science if you want to make them uncomfortable. Lastly it is against the comments policy at SkS! I understand where you are coming from, but fairness, open-mindedness and scientific accuracy are the best reply to this sort of thing. In otherwords, never wrestle with a pig - you'll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy that! ;o) -
threadShredder at 02:31 AM on 9 April 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
@DSL and Dikran Marsupial: Thanks for your replies. I'm very new to climate science but have learned a lot from this site, and would like to take this opportunity to thank all the contributors for their excellent work and, obviously, the significant amount of time that is required to do that work. I'm at the point that I can, by spending a lot of time, refute someone like Singer and his nonsense, but it's not easy for me. One of the problems as I see it is that these deniers and faux skeptics have not been given the proper level of public scrutiny and scorn from people who know the issues expertly. It's to the point that it almost requires bringing back public stocks. I'm American so I am painfully, painfully aware of the war on science and reason that is going on by one side of the political "debate." The Republicans have decided that it would be a good thing to take the country back to a time before the Enlightenment. I believe that they must be stopped and so it it my opinion that whenever one of the would-be country's pre-Enlightenment wishers takes to the podium, they must be confronted. That's why I hope everytime Singer and those like him get a forum to speak, that they are confronted with their errors. Dikran Marsupial: Unlike you, I find it [accusation of dishonesty snipped] Hopefully these people can be stopped and the "average" citizen, here in the U.S. and everywhere else, understands what an assault on evidence and reason and the world's future they are waging.Moderator Response: TC: As noted by Dikran Marsupial, accusations of dishonesty against anyone are against the comments policy. Please consider carefully whether it is really worthwhile having your post snipped or simply deleted before making such accusations on this site in future. -
KR at 00:54 AM on 9 April 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Eric (skeptic) - Scafetta's work really isn't about climate sensitivity, but about causality; he attributes mid-term climate change to solar/planetary cycles with ill-defined relationships, dismissing the influence of GHG changes and other forcings. The proper threads for discussing Scafetta and West would be Scafetta's Widget Problems or Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming, rather than dragging this thread off-topic. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:19 AM on 9 April 2012CO2 lags temperature
Eric (skeptic) that is a false dilemma, CO2 can lag temperature, or it can lead temperature, and there is evidence for both in paleoclimate data. Generally it depends whether CO2 is acting as a feedback (mostly due to the dependence of the ocean/atmopshere carbon exchange on temperature) or a forcing (e.g. rapid chemical weathering following the uplift of the Appalacians reducing atmospheric CO2 leading to cooler temperatures). Another example of CO2 acting as a forcing is the increase in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels leading to increasing temperatures. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:15 AM on 9 April 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
scaddenp, I have owed you a discussion of sensitivity for quite a while now. Here's a link to Scafetta and West 2006 containing estimates of climate sensitivity to solar energy increases. Scafetta in particular has been critiqued here on several threads for proposing terrestrial climate cycles based on solar system cycles which don't appear to be supported. Also critiqued for ascribing too much of the recent warming to a more active sun (both increased TSI and other less well-defined effects like GCR changes). If Scafetta is wrong about the contribution of solar changes to recent warming (i.e. he overestimated the contribution) then his low estimates of climate sensitivity to solar changes in the paper linked above should be even lower. I am assuming that climate sensitivity to solar secular changes (i.e. 100 years or so, not the solar cycle) is the same as climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing changes. If I am wrong, please correct that. If not, then a climate sensitivity of, on the low end, 0.2K per W per m2 leads to a 0.74 C per CO2 doubling. On the high end in that paper, 0.57K/W/m2 leads to 2.1C for a doubling of CO2. Wikipedia says 0.7K/W/m2 for solar and rounds up 3.7 to 4.0 to arrive at 2.8C which they round up to 3C. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:21 PM on 8 April 2012CO2 lags temperature
John Russell I think we are going to need more research to decide whether CO2 lags temperature or vice versa. The simple model in my mind is that temperature increases are amplified by CO2 increases. This is due to slow feedbacks on the order of hundreds to a 1000 or so years, things like CO2 from permafrost and methane from the deep ocean. The leading or lagging of CO2 could be more complex however since the systems are very nonlinear. For example some initial warming could cause a pulse of CO2 that leads to a larger warming. That may be what was being observed in the paper you linked to. -
Bernard J. at 23:01 PM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Phil at #6. I suspect that in the case of anthropogenic global warming, Planck's quote could be paraphrased thus:An established but ideologically-unpalatable scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its its truth eventually manifests regardless of any human disbelief, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with the truth - and despising the previous generations that were too blinkered to acknowledge the scientific truth and address it in time.
-
John Russell at 22:44 PM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
@Eric #7 I think you're going off topic; but I think you'll find what you need here: 'Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation'. There's a BBC report on the paper here. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:02 PM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
R. Gates, what evidence points to biosphere lag? If there is a lag, wouldn't there eventually be more CO2 uptake and more transpiration? -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:59 PM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
"There is an interesting dichotomy in [Lindzen]'s line of argument between the implication in the rest of the presentation that the climate is rather insensitive to change, and the observation that, on glacial interglacial scales, even very small changes in energy input led to massive change." Oversimplified, ignores the differences in feedbacks, see here. The more significant glacial/interglacial changes were not in energy, but in tilt and eccentricity leading to seasonal albedo and weather pattern changes leading to global average temperature changes. The worst case at present is if the CO2 increases lead to less concentrated convection, less meridional flow, less storminess on average, stronger polar jets (more positive AO), etc. That could certainly happen and I cannot credibly dispute models suggesting that. But others have suggested the opposite. -
Phil at 21:10 PM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Apologies if this is deemed off-topic, however I recently chanced upon this somewhat depressing quotation by Max Planck:A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Source here. - it would be interesting to know the context of his remarks, although I would guess he was thinking of quantum physics. Now AGW may not be a particularly new scientific truth, but the quotation does emphasize the difficult of overturning beliefs or assumptions that may have fueled a distinguished career, even amongst scientists. Do we really have to wait until Lindzen, Spencer et al to pass away ? -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:19 PM on 8 April 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
@threadShredder Note that Singer's first piece of evidence is the famous 1990 plot showing the MWP. However this isn't data, it is a schematic drawing designed to give a general impression of the MWP and LIA, but isn't intended to be quantatively accurate. The next point is that it isn't even based on global data, but the well know Centrat England Temperature (CET) dataset, so it only really says that England had a MWP and a LIA, and the extent of these phenomenon was uncertain at the time. Next the last datapoint in the diagram is the temperature for the period 1900-1950, so none of the warming since then appears on the diagram. So Singer is treating a schematic diagram of central England temperatures as if it were real data for global temperatures and then complaining that it doesn't match up to a proxy record of global temperatures, without mentioning that most of the data corresponding to the blade of the "hockey stick" isn't shown on the 1990 diagram. Personally I think it is ironic that he should be making accusations of dishonesty when his own article is deeply misleading (I am assuming that he is not being dishonest, just deluded as a result of a complete lack of self-skepticism). American thinker is doing nether Singer nor themselves any good publishing this sort of thing. BTW, the origin of the diagram is discussed in the appendix of this paper, especially of interest is figure 7, which plots the IPCC 1990 diagram and adds CET data from one of Lambs papers (confirming that this is what the IPCC diagram shows) and a smoothed version of the CET data itself, up to 2007, which shows that even on this basis, it is warmer in England now than it was in Lamb's qualitative impression of the MWP (note that Jones' et al. blatently over-intepret the significance of this by writing "recent measured warming may be comparable with presumed earlier warmth" ;o). -
ajki at 17:02 PM on 8 April 2012CO2 effect is saturated
Link given in "Further reading" appears to be broken as of April 2012. A quick scan revealed another link: http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr78.pdf (Ramanathan, V., 1998: Trace Gas Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming, Underlying Principles and Outstanding Issues. Ambio, 27(3): 187-197.) -
baschurchbill at 16:41 PM on 8 April 2012Submerged Forests off the coast of Wales: a Climate Change Snapshot
Many thanks John, As 6 above it is so nice to read such a well informed article about an area close to my home and heart. Very good points well put in 4 above. Kind regards Bill -
Matt Arkell at 14:23 PM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
Chris G @3, unfortunately, I think that far too many people would see that as a badge of honour, or that they know something the rest of them don't. This is a problem for more than just climate science, it goes to show just how pervasive magical thinking is for a lot of people. Of course, this only causes more problems for those of us who understand the science, as it creates a halo of people that (somehow) lend an air of credibility to the claims that they have knowledge that is being suppressed. And I guess in the end, it circles back to the problem of trying to rationalise someone out of a position they may not have rationalised themselves into in the first place. I don't think much can be done with the likes of Monckton, but people like Lindzen, who should know better, only compound the problem. -
DSL at 13:00 PM on 8 April 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
What's the point, tS? That mess over at AT is composed of ideological memory foam. Any change in thinking has a half-life of about 30 minutes. -
threadShredder at 11:45 AM on 8 April 2012Fred Singer Debunks and then Denies
Singer is at it again in the American "Thinker." Perhaps somebody at Skeptical Science can straighten out this mess: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/climategate_heads_to_court.html -
dana1981 at 10:09 AM on 8 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Tom - good point, I'll take out the 25% figure. V&T represents 10% of GSP, and Monckton told me he multiplied that by 2.5; however, since he messed up the calculation (the slide says $450 billion is the 'cost to 2020'), the 25% figure isn't actually right. I don't want to quote his email because I haven't been given permission to do so. The content of the email is described accurately in the post, however. Ultimately I think the problem is that Monckton didn't realize the V&T estimate was annual (I suspect he didn't even read the report itself - there were various news stories about it, including on WUWT prior to his talk, which mentioned the $182 billion figure), so then when he did realize it was annual, he came up with a lame excuse for his 2.5 multiplication factor, pretending he realized it all along. Because his WUWT post is not consistent with the explanation he gave me via email. -
Tom Curtis at 08:23 AM on 8 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
dana @30, did Monckton say the cost would be 25% of the state domestic product in 2020 during the talk, or did he just mention a dollar value, from which you then calculated the proportion of state domestic product? If the former he was definitely using the $450 billion as an annual figure, whereas in the later case you may have misunderstood him. Further, did he say the cost would be $450 billion "by 2020" or "in 2020"? If he said "by 2020" that is certainly consistent with his only claiming a cost of 56.25 billion annually, whereas if he said "in 2020" he is claiming an annual cost. Finally, if his email explanation is different from his WUWT explanation, perhaps you could quote the relevant sections of the email you received to demonstrate that. -
MA Rodger at 08:08 AM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
As John Russell @1, I was surprised to see the merry band of 'skeptics' bashing in at Carbon Brief to the point where the moderators felt they should close down over Easter when they wouldn't be around to closely police the event. . Beyond the particular scientific criticism of Lindzen, it was quite shocking to hear Lindzen in his talk seriously misrepresent climate science to an audience supposedly unfamiliar with the subject (it being titled Global Warming: How to approach the science.). The erronious accusation he made against NASA GISS has since been laid off onto somebody else. Yet even ignoring this, the complaints by Hoskins et al described in this post are merely part of it. . In the talk, Lindzen presents Arctic temperatures for different years, not in sequece but shuffled like a card sharp. He also presents a failed 30-year-old argument about global mean temperatures being like 'reading tea leaves' without properly pointing out the data presented was 30 years out of date (ie before the present warming began to bite). . He states that such average global temperatures always vary by 0.7 deg C whatever the timescale which is utterly untrue. He compares this variation with the Boston temperature record to suggest that if temperatures vary less than +/-15 deg C it is actually of doubtful scientific relevance! (See the end of the video of the first half of the event to hear him splurge this comment here with the second half here (beware title music). . The man has truly lost it. MIT should really be thinking how to retire the man a.s.a.p. before the embarassment becomes excessive. -
Chris G at 08:07 AM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
I wonder how many people would seek treatment from an oncologist who was thought of by other oncologists in the same way that Lindzen is by other climate researchers. I guess if he promised them they would be fine he would still be popular amongst the laymen. -
dana1981 at 06:27 AM on 8 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Actually the post is accurate. It says V&T estimated $182 billion annually and Monckton estimated $450 billion by 2020. Monckton responded to my email saying he had multiplied the V&T figure by 2.5 to include other GHG mitigation measures, as the post says. I suppose the post could be updated to reflect Monckton's new explanation on WUWT, but it's not really any better than his email explanation. Frankly I think Monckton didn't read V&T until after this post was published (which would explain why he thought they estimated $182 billion by 2020, rather than annually - my confusion came from this claim in his email, though I did get the information right in the post). When Monckton finally was made aware of the V&T flaws, rather than admit the estimate has no basis, he came up with a new bogus justification for his trumped-up $450 billion figure. In the end I think the OP is still accurate. -
R. Gates at 04:03 AM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
It seems Monckton and Lindzen are truly "birds of a feather" as they both misrepresent the entire sensitivity issue, and in a way that is obnoxiously unscientific. Monckton even goes so far as to claim he is an "expert" in this issue, claiming with certainty that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels to be at most 1.1C or so. I wonder if Lindzen even realizes how silly he looks to be associated with Monckton? I wonder if Monckton and Lindzen really understand that the Earth has not yet reached a true Earth system equilibrium point from the current 392 ppm of CO2, meaning of course, that even if we stopped pouring CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today, and could keep things at 392 ppm, that the Earth will continue warming for several more decades at least until the slower Earth system feedbacks such as the cryopshere and biosphere reach some new equilibrium? What this means of course is that no one knows even what the current 392 ppm of CO2 means in terms of global temperature once all slower Earth system feedback have completed, thus, how much more absolutely impossible is it to know what the final equilibrium temperature rise would be at 560 ppm! 3C is certainly a very reasonable estimate based on faster feedbacks, and certainly it could be higher once all Earth system feedbacks have kicked in such as cryosphere (including methane release from permfrost) and biosphere. -
John Russell at 03:39 AM on 8 April 2012Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
It's worth looking at the original post on Carbon Brief (first link in the post, above) where -- before the thread was so abruptly closed on Friday 6th -- no other than 'Monckton of Brenchley' and Luboš Motl had waded in with their sycophantic support of Lindzen. Clearly the number of 'likes' received suggests a substantial drive-by of the those in denial. Help in redressing the balance gratefully received. I've asked that a note can be added to the original post to direct people across to here if they want to continue the discussion. -
Tom Curtis at 00:03 AM on 8 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
idunno @28, an update would seem in order. However, in calculating his cost/benefit analysis Monckton assumes the benefits ( = avoided costs) of mitigation apply in just one year only, 2100. As his source documents for his benefits indicates that cost exists for each and every year, his benefits need to by multiplied by the same factor as his costs. If in doing so he retains the 2.5 times multiplier, than Dana's critique remains valid as is. If he eliminates the 2.5 times multiplier, he will have overstated costs relative to benefits by a factor of four. The upshot is that while the post does need to be revised, any such revision will strengthen the argument that Monckton has made arbitrary assumptions fundamental to favouring his case. Dana's error is in assuming that it was multiplying the costs by 2.5, whereas in fact it was dividing the benefits (for a single decade of analysis) by 10. Finally, I note that many of the costs in V&T are one of costs rather than ongoing costs. That means that even if we were to accept V&T, while the benefits of AB32 would be sustained over the following century, the costs would decline. -
John Russell at 22:54 PM on 7 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 2)
Y'know; with the right audiences I reckon Monckton's approach to climate science could actually backfire on him. In the case of this article and this article -- both published in a student on-line newspaper -- it seems on balance his lecture raised awareness of the subject and provoked a strong negative (ie pro the consensus) reaction. Luckily I suspect his self-confidence will mean he's slow to realise that he should be careful to whom he lectures. -
idunno at 21:32 PM on 7 April 2012Monckton Misleads California Lawmakers - Now It's Personal (Part 1)
Hi Dana, Much as it sticks in my craw to offer anything resembling support for Monckton, I do think that if you have confused an annual figure for a total cost, this should be corrected in the article above. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 20:02 PM on 7 April 2012Submerged Forests off the coast of Wales: a Climate Change Snapshot
It is great to see such an excellent article about a place I live so close to and love so much. Readers may not be aware that near Machynlleth (map above) is the wonderful Centre for Alternative Technology. It evolved as a testing-ground for low-carbon technology and is now a training centre for everything from low impact architecture to small-scale anaerobic digestion. It is open to the public - to get to the site you travel in a water-powered cliff railway. Well worth a visit. -
orcman at 18:24 PM on 7 April 2012Submerged Forests off the coast of Wales: a Climate Change Snapshot
Sorry to niggle but "sarnau" actually means "causeway" (plural of sarn) and appropriate considering the location! Interesting article - thanks. -
Bernard J. at 17:55 PM on 7 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
There's a big difference between can't survive anywhere, and must move somewhere. Humans live in decently warm places already...
I don't think that anyone would dispute that humans are able to live at temperatures considerably greater than the current mean global temperature. However, there are many factors involved in maintaining survival if the global mean is increased. Amongst them... 1) Many serious human diseases, and their vectors, thrive at warmer temperatures. A change toward greater incidence of disease compromises a species' capacity for survival, especially in competition with taxonomically distant taxa. 2) Whilst humans have a capacity for modification of their environment in order to regulate their temperature, the rest of the biosphere is not so fortunate. Many species on which humans rely for direct or for indirect ecological services will be negatively affected, and this will impact back on humans, even if they themselves are cloistered in air-conditioned cells. 3) In a world where fossil fuel energy density is a thing of the past, human labour will necessarily regain widespread utility. Working harder in a warmer climate will inevitably affect our species physiological fitness directly, and relative to other species. All the more so considering that a significant chunk of the industrialised world wouldn't know what hard physical work is, and because they are carrying an insulating layer of blubber courtesy of the obesity epidemic. 4) In most cases it is not the mean temperature that challenges a homeotherm, but the extremes that occur under a particular regime. An increase in mean of "just a few degrees" brings with it an increase in both the frequency and the absolute magnitude of extreme temperture events, and it is these that operate as the weak link in stressed thermostatic physiologies. 5) Human populations are concentrating in urban environments over time. Remember those heat islands? The result is an overall increased vulnerability to heat shocks. 6) Much of modern human response to heat requires technological intervention. No matter the dreams of thermodynamically-illiterate, technophilic Utopians, future human societies will have less recourse to technological intervention in ambient temperatures, especially as more and more fossil fuel is combusted to (in part, ironically) maintain current living standards. 7) Related to the previous point is the fact that global economies are beginning to shake under the manifestation of the same ignorance of thermodynamics that afflicts technosalvationists, and even a brief period of serious generalised damage to the financial system will see an accompanying decay in infrastructure - which is not likely to be easily reversed in a world where densely-concentrated energy is a thing of the past. 8) Displacement for reasons of avoiding heat stress is only a part of a greater AGW-caused displacement of other factors that affect human survival. If humans cannot bring everything else they require in their move to Cooltopia, then other aspects of the fitness for survival will be diminished. And this list is just for starters. -
Dragon_Of_Daenarys at 17:43 PM on 7 April 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
How soon for an SKS article regarding Shakun et al? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.htmlModerator Response: [DB] A post nears completion. -
Riccardo at 17:36 PM on 7 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
Tony O the AAC is essentially wind driven, no major changes are projected. -
Tom Curtis at 11:56 AM on 7 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
scaddenp @25, can I suggest as a participant (not a moderator) that all future discussion of the runaway greenhouse effect be moved to this post where it is on topic. The OP here is about Hansen's motiviation, and the TED video embedded in the OP, which contains no discussion of runaway greenhouse.Moderator Response: [DB] Thank you. Participants interested in discussing the "runaway greenhouse effect" please do so at the thread recommended by Tom. -
Tom Curtis at 11:52 AM on 7 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
jzk @20, to correctly quote Hansen what you should have written is:"[0:10] If we allow emissions to continue at a high rate, then this century we are going to see ice sheets disintegrate [...] [1:16] On the long run, if that really happened, over the centuries we could get a run away green house effect, and then, that's it for all the species on this planet."
(Source)"[2:04] [The runaway greenhouse effect] means once the planet gets warmer and warmer the oceans begin to evaporate, and water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas - even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where it just ... the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere."
(Same source.) In contrast, your "quote" got the wording wrong, in several places significantly wrong. What is worse, it covered up not just a change in paragraph, but a change in section by an ellipsis which indicated the continuation was part of the same sentence. (This is worse only because your changes of wording did not significantly change meaning.) Further, you did not clearly indicate either the source video, nor the times things where mentioned. More substantially, by not quoting the first part of the section from which the major part of the quote was drawn, you made it obscure that Hansen is talking about high emission rates over the centuries. From your butchered quote, it was quite possible that he was talking about high emission rates over this century only which would have unstoppable knock on effects several centuries down the track. Your immediately following comment encouraged this interpretation. You emphasize that he is puts no limitation on the prediction, and say that, "He is telling the public that if we continue business as usual (as he has said many many times in many places) that very severe things will happen like huge sea level rises, mass extinction events and boiling the water on the planet." Hansen believes that BAU over just this century, indeed, over just the next 50 years will result in huge sea level rises and major extinction events. By just tagging "boiling the water on the planet" onto the list, you implicitly suggest that the timeframe of BAU needed to boil the water is of the same order as that needed for melting most of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland Ice Sheet, ie, 50 to 100 years. Given the butchered nature of your quote, this constitutes a misrepresentation of Hansen. What you should have written is something like:"He is telling the public that if we continue business as usual (as he has said many many times in many places) that very severe things will happen like huge sea level rises, mass extinction events and, if continued over centuries, may result in boiling the water on the planet."
(Amendments underlined, minor amendments for grammar not noted.) That then fairly represents Hansen's views by both by indicating the relevant time frame of BAU needed, and indicating that Hansen believes that the runaway greenhouse effect is a possibility, not a certainty under those conditions (as indicated by his use of the term "could"). I accept that your misrepresentation was entirely unintentional. Indeed, being fair your wording suggests the misrepresentation rather than explicitly stating it. However, I also believe my interpretation of your words to have been entirely justified given what you actually wrote. Note: I am only responding on this point because claims of misrepresentation, or actual misrepresentation must be fairly dealt with where they occurred. Any future discussion of Hansen's views on Runaway Greenhouse should be shifted to where they are on topic. -
Tony O at 10:59 AM on 7 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
Is a breakdown, or major perturbation, of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current impossible, possible or inevitable some time in the distant future? Would this then affect circumpolar winds? (I have no idea of the answers). From the little I have seen of the outputs of climate models it would appear everyone is assuming it will remain stable. If it did change, the estimates of sea level rise would have to change too. -
scaddenp at 09:58 AM on 7 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
As far as I can see, there is no consensus on runaway greenhouse to be discussed. Hansen mentions the extreme case of putting every bit of available carbon into the atmosphere,(and its a mighty distraction to real problem of what we are actually doing frankly, on which there is a consensus) and as far as I can see, there is no published science for that extreme case. He may be right (he has the wherewithall to do the maths, unlike me) but we need to see the maths to know. I think its a massive distraction because I doubt you could find an economically justifiable way to achieve it even without the downsides. -
michael sweet at 08:37 AM on 7 April 2012James Hansen's Motivation
jzk, "The recipient of the 24th Edinburgh Medal was announced today as Dr James Hansen", see above link. If Hansen did not generally agree with the consensus he would not have received the Edinburgh Medal. Where he differs he is often correct. -
dr2chase at 07:14 AM on 7 April 2012Eocene Park: our experiment to recreate the atmosphere of an ancient hothouse climate
If I may be briefly grumpy about heat and human habitation. There's a big difference between can't survive anywhere, and must move somewhere. Humans live in decently warm places already, and the number of people displaced, eventually, because it gets unsurvivably hot is probably smaller than the number displaced because of high water (this is a pure SWAG on my part, but lots of people live on or near the coast in many countries).
Prev 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 Next
