Recent Comments

Prev  1212  1213  1214  1215  1216  1217  1218  1219  1220  1221  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  Next

Comments 60951 to 61000:

60951. Tom Curtis at 16:05 PM on 27 March 2012
       The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
       barry @13:42, I believe that when Steve Jones claimed statistical significance, he did not allow for the auto-correlation of temperatures, and hence understated it. He was also talking about the 1995-2011 interval, which is closer to significant, and probably is "significant" if you ignore auto-correlation (which means precisely nothing except that he was accurately reporting on an inaccurate measure). Of course, reporting on just HadCRUT3 is a kind of cherry picking, as is simply reporting statistical significance or lack of it. There are three major temperature indices, whose trends from 1995-2012 lie in the following ranges: HadCRUT3 : -0.048 to 0.21 ^oC/decade NOAA: -0.017 to 0.213 ^oC/decade GISTEMP: 0.01 to 0.25 ^oC/decade So, even if we had nothing but HadCRUT3, we would have to conclude that the underlying trend is as likely to be 0.21 ^oC/decade as -0.048, and more likely to be 0.16 ^oC/decade than to be 0 ^oC/decade. That hardly supports denier claims that the temperature (understood as the underlying trend) is flat. What is more, it is not the only evidence we have on the underlying trend from 1995-2012, even just using HadCRUT3. For example, the trend from 1975-2012 lies in the range 0.121 to 0.203 ^oC/decade. Because of the overlap, that indicates is prima facie evidence that the underlying trend from 1995 to 2012 lies in the same interval, evidence that has not been "defeated" (to use a technical term from epistemology) by more recent data. Further, because we have three indices, absent compelling reason to think one of them flawed we should weight each of them equally. Doing so gives a trend range of 0.012 to 0.224. In other words, going on the total range of the data, the warming has been statistically significant over that period. (Please note that I am excluding the satellite indices from this comparison because they are much more effected by ENSO events. As a result they are much noisier data and have a much longer interval before we can expect statistically significant trends to emerge. As such they are not strictly comparable for this purpose. If you used an ENSO corrected version of the indices, all five should be used for this sort of comparison.) Of course, the kicker is that one of the three indices is known to have significant flaws, and despite the fantasies of the fake "skeptics", that one it HadCRUT3. With the release of information about the forthcoming HadCRUT4, it becomes clear that the lack of Arctic stations in HadCRUT3 has biased the index low. Kevin C has two forthcoming posts on other known features of HadCRUT3 which bias the trend low.
60952. skywatcher at 16:03 PM on 27 March 2012
       New research from last week 12/2012
       jyyh, you might like this link to a segment I saw on a British science program, Bang Goes the Theory: Jem Melts Rock Using Sunshine. A ~1m parabolic mirror (IIRC from a big searchlight or something) can reach temperatures of ~3500C at the focus! So a much smaller mirror will reach 450C. Makes me wonder what temperature would be at the focus of my 8" telescope mirror in sunlight.
60953. jyyh at 15:22 PM on 27 March 2012
       New research from last week 12/2012
       Fig 1. in gives some indication of how much biochar could be in the soil: http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/LEHMANN%20and%20RONDON%202006%20Bio%20Char%20Soil%20Management.pdf but this is for tropical (I'm assuming quite deep) soils, does someone know of a similar study made on temperate or boreal soils?
60954. prokaryotes at 15:06 PM on 27 March 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       Fixed linkage http://climateprogress.net/item/the-crisis-of-civilization.html
60955. prokaryotes at 15:05 PM on 27 March 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       Must watch THE CRISIS OF CIVILIZATION http://climateprogress.net/item/the-crisis-of-civilization.html
60956. scaddenp at 14:49 PM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       SS - I believe the moderator may be pinging you for repeating earlier statement but without any supporting evidence. Scientific skepticism would require that you cite some published papers to support the idea that models are good enough, etc. Instead you repeated statements that you would know were untrue if you had looked at the science. At the moment, it does not appear that your opinion is based on science. As to what would happen next, if everyone accepted your defeatism, then the evidence indicates that more people will die than if we took action, and future generations will pay a higher cost than if we mitigated emissions. Excuse us if we prefer to advocate for some action instead.
60957. Phil L at 14:47 PM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       I don't understand people like ScientificSkeptic who seem to think that AGW is only a problem if it results in catastrophe such as mass extinctions. I live in a fairly northern location, in a transition between boreal forest and prairie ecozones. With a couple degrees of warming, perhaps conditions might improve for certain agricultural crops hereabouts, but not for forestry. Even with a longer growing season, the luvisolic soils that have developed under forest cover on glacial till simply will not grow wheat like the chernozemic soils that developed on the lacustrine deposits of glacial Lake Agassiz. Winters aren't cold enough to kill the Mountain Pine Beetle larvae anymore, and it's looking as though that epidemic is likely to expand from the lodgepole pine forests of B.C. and Alberta into the Jack pine of Saskatchewan and possibly eventually across Canada's boreal region as far as Newfoundland and Labrador. Forestry workers aren't generally seen as tree-huggers but many of them are concerned.
60958. DSL at 14:43 PM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       ScientificSkeptic, you just need to be a little more careful and precise. You just made what appears to be a general claim: "The science is dubious." The fundamental science of the theory of AGW is anything but dubious. We've known about the possibility of AGW almost as long as we've had a directly-recorded temperature record. What exactly do you find dubious? Is it the modelling? If so, take it to one of the models threads. Put up or shut up. I happen to agree with you that there are problems on the horizon that are at least as big as AGW. Peak oil and peak water are two. Yet the situation is much more complicated than that; the synergy between the dominant mode of production, its resulting culture, peak oil, peak water, AGW, and the rapidly growing population is describable only in broad terms. It is clear, though, that AGW is a problem that will make all other problems much worse. If it were happening in a managed economy, with a well-informed democracy and a culture of trust, then I would say, "This is not a problem. We will see the danger and work out the best solutions." We're living in conditions that are the reverse of those listed. The economic mode determines the interests of the people. The democracy is generally clueless (name your country). Trust is not a cultural feature of the current economic mode. Interestingly, and perhaps fortunately (eventually), the solutions to the big problems are isomorphic to a large degree. Fix the moral failure of forcing ten billions to fight for food/energy over the next century, and we can hardly end up failing to address AGW. Problems and solutions are tied too closely together. However, if we don't do something about AGW now, the changes that occur (shifting weather patterns, biosphere adaptation problems, infrastructure replacement, the decline of the ocean as a food source, etc.) will drain resources--resources that could be used to fund education, research, and development to provide the technological miracle that will allow us to continue with unfettered economic growth and to avoid having the grand (and probably rather bloody) change in consciousness. In other words, the longer we wait to address any of the big problems, the more difficult it gets to address any of the big problems.
60959. jyyh at 14:28 PM on 27 March 2012
       New research from last week 12/2012
       Since the forum is down I'll put this in here: http://news.rice.edu/2012/03/22/cooking-better-biochar-study-improves-recipe-for-soil-additive/ Apparently 450C is enough to get some proper biochar, presumably they've checked for most common organic toxins, and found those destroyed in this temperature. How large a paraboloid mirror can produce a temperature like that?
60960. chriskoz at 14:23 PM on 27 March 2012
       New research from last week 12/2012
       A recalibration of an ensemble of global climate models using observations over 28 years provides a scenario independent relationship and yields about 2°C change in annual mean global surface temperature above present as the most likely global temperature threshold for September sea ice to disappear If I read it correctly, then they predict September ice to disappear when transient climate response reaches 2K. That may happen sometimes by the end of this century, which is a rough estimate of BAU given transient climate sensitivity in the same ballpark of 2K. That's in contradiction to the observational predictions, that we may see ice-free Arctic sometimes in 2020-2030, or even as soon as 2015 by some sources, as it is accelerating. I don't have access to full text to check their claim or verify that my undesrtanding of their conclusion is correct. Can anyone shed some light on it?
60961. skywatcher at 13:53 PM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       Scientific Skeptic, I wonder if the people in Queensland, Texas, Russia, Pakistan and Thailand (amongst many others) that have been impacted directly by large floods, droughts and heatwaves, of a type known to be exacerbated by AGW, think that these are just a "... woolly prediction about what might happen in 100, 200, x000 years time ..."? Hansen et al 2011, document the observed increase in extremes of heat. Fancy a 3-sigma heat event whose odds of occurrence in any one location have increased 100-fold (from ~0.13% to ~10%)... are ya feelin' lucky, punk?
60962. barry1487 at 13:42 PM on 27 March 2012
       The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
       I'm sure I'm not the only know-little in the climate debates who has been looking for a way to glean statistical significance of a trend without taking a stats course. But I'm still not sure how or if I can use this tool to do that. As I was fiddling about trying to understand the variables, I ran the tool for HadCRUt global temp data from 1995 to 2012 - 17 years minimum, and with interest in the 1995 trend per the 'controversy' following phil Jones' comments of a few years ago. Trend: 0.081 ±0.129 °C/decade (2σ) β=0.0081091 σw=0.0016822 ν=14.770 σc=σw√ν=0.0064651 As far as I can read it - just looking at the first line - no trend is evident due to the uncertainty being larger than the estimate. I'm probably wrong in several ways, I'm sure - but if not then HadCRUt shows no trend for a period that skeptics are latching onto as the 'alarmist approved', gold-standard minimum time period for statistical significance in the global temp records. Whatever the case, this is a bit confusing (to me) considering Phil Jones more recent comment on the trend, with more data available, being both positive statistically significant. If an expert has time and interest in educating the maths idiots out here, a post of examples using some of the popular time frames and showing how statistical significance is gleaned from the tool, would be great. For example; showing how the HadCRUt trend from 1995 shifted from 'just barely' statistically signficant to statistical significance a la Phil Jones' comments; showing why the trend from 1998 is not statistically significant but the trend from 1988 is. And maybe showing what happens to the significance variables around the 17-year mark. Do I need to take a course, or can a complete noob use this tool to declare a trend is or isn't statistically signficant?
60963. skywatcher at 13:42 PM on 27 March 2012
       Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
       #46: SkS has some comment on Dessler's 2011 paper that deals with Lindzen and Choi here and also in a little more detail here. As for "it hasn't warmed as much as expected recently", Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 show that it has warmed just as much as expected, given recent solar and ENSO variations and the ongoing GHG forcing increase. The 2000s were also hotter than expected given the decadal trend through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Convincing the general public is a different matter - new temperature records will go a long way to dealing with your #1 IMHO, and #2 is largely irrelevant as LC11 is a poor, debunked paper at variance with a mountain of evidence. New temperature records look distinctly possible in the next few years, largely dependant on ENSO, and are virtually certain after a few years regardless with the continuing rise in forcing. I don't think all this is that much about debating type fora anyway. That people like Monckton continue speaking rubbish shows you don't need evidence to claim to have a debate. But there's so little hard evidence to support any of the various mutually contradictory skeptical stances, they are finding it increasingly hard to support pretty much any points. This is leading to increased infighting and marginalisation amongst skeptics as they try and decide which points to follow.
60964. John Hartz at 13:29 PM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       @Tom Curtis #39: Well said! Suggest that you transform it into a blog post article -- perhaps titled, "Open Letter to a 'Climate Skeptic.'"
60965. Tom Curtis at 12:28 PM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       scientificskeptic @35 shows in two phrases why he is not being skeptical:

       "If our best models cannot accurately tell us the weather Friday week, how can we believe ones that tell us we'll be drowning in a hundred years time?"

       The impossibility of accurate short term prediction of weather is a result of weather being chaotic. This is encapsulated in the so called butterfly effect, ie, that the weather is chaotic so that a flap of a butterfly's wing can cause a hurricane. However, while apparently believing that so small effect can have such large consequences, the self named "ScientificSkeptic" believes that we can double the CO2 in the atmosphere with negligible consequences. If AGW deniers truly believed that climate was as chaotic as weather, they would by violently opposed to any perturbation of climate, right down to stratospheric air traffic. In fact, what they actually believe as demonstrated by their practice is that climate is fundamentally predictable, and fundamentally stable. So stable, in fact that you can double or even triple CO2 content and the effects will scarcely differ from natural variability, which they assume to be low over the medium and even long term (in historical terms). Reference to the unpredictability of weather in a climate debate shows only that the referrer has not thought out the logical implication of their claims - that they are feeding us sound bites, not reasons.

       "The main point is how we adapt as a species. Going on our past record, we're pretty good at it."

       A similar point can be made about the self named "ScientificSkeptic's" main refrain. His argument depends on the assumption that humans are ultimately adaptable so that adapting to a four degree plus increase in global temperature will not be a problem; but also on the claim that we will be unable to adapt to any means taken to avoid such an increase. Again, he does not follow through his claims with reasoning to ensure consistency. If adapting to a $200 US$ per tonne carbon tax, for example will have significantly harmful effects (as he wants to claim) then adapting to a four degree plus temperature increase must logically also be capable of resulting in significant harm. Given that, he owes us reasons why he thinks one to be more harmful than the other, but no reason is given. What he has in fact done is provided us with slogans in lieu of thought. Because they are slogans, he feels no need to apply them consistently. And because they are slogans, they are empty verbage serving no greater purpose then to identify which camp he is in. Sadly, you rarely find better from any self named AGW "skeptic". It is because of this that they have to call themselves "skeptics", because nobody else would based on their reasoning.
60966. muoncounter at 11:21 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       SS#35: " Earth's atmosphere and the conditions that have resulted at ground level have always changed, albeit at a geological timescale rather than one of a rolling live news feed." Exactly. The changes we now see are neither geologic nor natural. That they are visible and widespread should disturb you. Now try to focus on specifics rather than vague generalities which sum to 'it will all be ok.'
60967. John Hartz at 11:19 AM on 27 March 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       @Kate #1: Lucky for us, Interpol doesn't charge for investigating crimes.
60968. Muzz at 11:16 AM on 27 March 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       Strange, my perfectly valid comment about the caption of the cartoon appears to have disappeared lol. It was in position 9 or 10. Must take screen shots in future, in case I'm mistaken
       Moderator Response: [DB] Your previous comment was deemed trolling due to the many polarizing fake-skeptic terms, unsupported assertions and debunked memes it contained. This website explores the science of climate change. As such, all positions are supported by references and citations to the peer-reviewed primary literature published in reputable journals. Please take the time to engage in dialogue that makes a positive contribution, not detracts from it.
60969. scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       "I think its effect is exagerated, however, because big claims make big headlines." What sort of logic is this? If your understanding of what the effects of climate change are comes from headlines, then please live up to your moniker and look at AR4, WG 2 for what the science says. "If our best models cannot accurately tell us the weather Friday week, how can we believe ones that tell us we'll be drowning in a hundred years time?" Please see Science can predict the weather to get an understanding of the science around this old chestnut. "In any case, we cannot control our climate and it is pure hubris to believe that we can." "Control" no, but your already agree that we effect it. If we stop changing the atmosphere, then we stop our component to climate. Climate that changes slowly, we can handle. Its very rapid change that causes the problems. "I believe all of those people deserve the same standard of living." Then why would you deny it to them - climate change affects many of the poorest countries worst. Sure, let them grow - by cutting the emissions in the West so they can grow emissions without damaging the atmosphere. Do you expect international climate agreement when the West, responsible for most of additional CO2 in the atmosphere to date, wont make cuts? Going by our past record, sudden, unpleasant population crashes result from not taking enough notice of rapid environment change. That's one way to adapt but its not a nice one. SS - you seem to arrived at your current position from a considerable misunderstanding of the science and related issues. Its great that you have found SkepSci. Take some time to look over the arguments and get a proper understanding of the science.
60970. John Hartz at 11:08 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       @ScientificSkeptic: For the human race, there is no Planet B.
60971. yocta at 10:51 AM on 27 March 2012
       Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
       In speculation...the possibilities for the attack. The Australian Institute of Criminology has a discussion on possible motives. A study (** Kilger et al. (2004)) is cited in which summarise in a general sense the motives of hackers:(MEECES) Money Entertainment Ego (Intellectual Challenge) Cause (or malice: attacking the system, vengeance and vindictiveness, power, terrorism) Entrance to social groups Status. I would argue that in this case the hacker would most likely fall into the "cause" camp. The individual (or group) have clearly targeted SkS in a specific and targeted way perhaps trying to emulate (or follow up) on the University of East Anglia email dumps. This might be the type of behavior expected for issues that are becoming very partisan. This hacker is probably is reading through all these comments now feeling very proud of themselves but predictably haven't accomplished anything. *Kilger M, Arkin O & Stutzman J 2004. Profiling. In The honeynet project know your enemy: learning about security threats (second edition). Boston: Addison Wesley. http://www.honeynet.org/book/Chp16.pdf
60972. Nick Palmer at 09:58 AM on 27 March 2012
       Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
       Notwithstanding the glorious Lord Monckton's oratorical skills which are a frightening example of rabble rousing McCarthyism, the "serious sceptics" one finds online are zeroing in (being forced to zero in) on only a few real debating points. Rob Honeycutt and myself have been hammering away at one of these incorrigibles on a Greenman video recently What they have is only this: 1) It hasn't warmed as much as expected recently 2) Lindzen and Choi 2011, with a side order of Spencer and Braswell have shown that climate feedback is neutral or negative 3) Errrm - ? Nail these two in a manner that could convince the general public in a debating type forum and we win. Fail to do that and we lose the political credibility necessary for sufficient action to be taken soon enough.
60973. littlerobbergirl at 09:56 AM on 27 March 2012
       Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
       Well im glad i spared a few minutes from walking in the bluebell woods (flowering a month early!), watering the garden before the hosepipe ban (in march!) and mowing the rapidly browning lawn to come on line. Password changed ok, no spam or other obvious problems. Pathetic behaviour, but sadly unsurprising given how influential this wonderful site is now. Good luck finding the thief and securing the site people, but do try to get a bit of sleep!
60974. MarkJBohrer at 09:22 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       Additional thought on post Composer99@1 There is one example still visible today where the ancient Greeks did not look to the future. Because they needed tall trees for their warships, and the need for ships was great, they stripped the hills of their trees. The trees were not replanted. The dry Greek hills used to have trees! The Greeks may not have changed the climate of the world, but they permanently changed the landscape and ecosystem of the Greek peninsula - and not for the better.
60975. andylee at 08:32 AM on 27 March 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       In Douglas Adams’ style, perhaps “The Restaurant at the Top of the World” may yet come to pass.
60976. funglestrumpet at 08:20 AM on 27 March 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       Number of items: I would prefer more in-depth, but less in number, if only due to time restraints. Yes, I read all articles and most comment threads, except when two people are battling it out and it is clear that neither will give way. Having said that, I rarely go back over the comment threads once I have read them, unless there is an unresolved issue that I am interested in that might be resolved in later comments. I post when the mood takes me, but usually only once per article.
       Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your active particpation in the comment threads is also appreciated.
60977. Paul D at 07:38 AM on 27 March 2012
       The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
       A nice tool and created by a volunteer.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text.
60978. John Hartz at 07:14 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       More evidence that manmade climate change has been impacting the global climate system: “The past decade has been one of unprecedented weather extremes. Scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental. From the many single events a pattern emerges. At least for extreme rainfall and heat waves the link with human-caused global warming is clear, the scientists show in a new analysis of scientific evidence in the journal Nature Climate Change. Less clear is the link between warming and storms, despite the observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes.” Source:”Weather records due to climate change: a game with loaded dice,” press release posted by the Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research on March 25, 2012. To access the entire press release, click here. Note: The entire press release will soon be posted verbatim on SkS.
60979. Rob Honeycutt at 07:06 AM on 27 March 2012
       The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
       Better than that would be a shortened url rather than the long ones woodfortrees does.
60980. pbjamm at 06:57 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       william@28 Coincidentally I was thinking about this subject this very morning. Clay tablets are cumbersome and fragile. Stamping the words into thin metal sheets (like giant dog tags) and stuck in binders would be more durable. This has risks of its own. In the post pox-eclipse world the person who finds such a book might destroy it to use the metal. Not the kinds of future I want for my kids and (potential future) grand kids.
60981. diessoli at 06:54 AM on 27 March 2012
       The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
       Very useful. Thanks. A nice-to-have would be the ability to create a hyperlink to a specific graph (like woodfortrees offers). D.
60982. Andy Skuce at 06:46 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       ScientificSkeptic@25 We are not "being asked to gamble our lifestyles on a woolly prediction" we are, rather, obligated to make policy decisions based on the best science we have. Business-as-usual is a choice, too. As for "cut to the bone", well, I would like to hear why you think that proposals to make users of fossil fuel energy pay now, for the consequences of their putting CO2 into the atmosphere, will be all that costly. Prominent economists like William Nordhaus don't think so. See here also. I hope that you are correct about the higher quality of life in 5000AD. You are certainly correct to say that humans have a great capacity for adaptation that will continue--we'll quickly adapt to a carbon tax, too--but one thing that sets us apart from other animals is our ability, limited and imperfect though it is, to see the future. Here's hoping that we use that ability wisely. That's what Kate's article was about.
60983. dana1981 at 06:42 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       Arguments like "Earth will be fine" and "humans won't go extinct" really bother me. Personally I'd like to set the bar a little higher for our species than 'not going extinct'.
60984. muoncounter at 06:40 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       SciSkep#25: "I think the threat from AGW is rather exagetated " And this opinion is based on ... ? For a counter opinion, based on actual research, see Trenberth's latest: The average anthropogenic climate change effect is not negligible, but nor is it large, although a small shift in the mean can lead to very large percentage changes in extremes. ... It is when natural variability and climate change develop in the same direction that records get broken. Perhaps you will ask: What records get broken? Heat, drought, fire, flood, famine... Exaggerations, not.
60985. william5331 at 06:21 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       Perhaps it is time we put the record of our times on clay tablets, fired them and concealed them all over the world. Our paper won't survive and likewise our floppies, stiffies, DVD's and flash drives. Perhaps the best thing we could do for these people of the future is to record the greed of our bankers and CEO's and the role vested interests played in our society. Dark ages have happened repeatedly in the past but this time it will involve the whole world. Perhaps we can keep the next organized society that rises from the ashes from making the same mistakes. We aren't having much success with this one.
60986. bibasir at 06:04 AM on 27 March 2012
       Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
       jimb Not magicians, rather tv wrestlers.
60987. John Mason at 06:03 AM on 27 March 2012
       Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
       It is a fine example of science in progress, with actual skepticism applied. Huge difference between that and "I don't like this so I'm not gonna listen!" It's interesting to note how some activists who oppose a lot of climate science are moving towards acceptance of the century-old physics behind the greenhouse effect and the notion that rising greenhouse gases will cause warming: yes there is a debate WRT overall sensitivity including feedbacks both in the literature and in the blogosphere, but even so, to me the bottom line is how big a risk are we prepared to take?
60988. scaddenp at 05:38 AM on 27 March 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       If it has unknown driver, then why do we see something like MCA in forcing-based models? (See the AR4 discussion). That is not to say that there is a strong consensus of mechanisms, especially for the regional distribution, but its not a great mystery.
60989. Geo77 at 05:19 AM on 27 March 2012
       Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
       J Mason- Thank you for a very interesting post. When reading about the various research articles on the pro and con side of the impact theory I could not help but think - now this is how science really works (as opposed to the political back and forth plaguing the AGW "debate"). This would make a fascinating module for a high school or college earth science class, to expose kids and young adults to how critical thinking plays out in the world of science. Especially since it is playing out in real time. Though the latest evidence appears to be tilting in favor of an impact hypothesis the questions raised by the follow up papers on the Murray Springs site (regarding such things as background iridium levels)appear to have been the true kind of skepticism, well informed and asking reasonable questions. Having been a geology student during the time when many of the details of plate tectonics were being fleshed out I know form experience that very good scientists asking very good questions can later be perceived as having been on the "wrong" side of some of the issues being explored, which I think is unfortunate. As long as the questions are asked in the true spirit of scientific inquiry (ie you have to accept data that goes against your ideas and rework your hypothesis appropriately)there is no such thing as being on the wrong side in a scientific debate. That's why it's so sad to see such an important and fascinating topic as climate change subjected to the political hucksterism and deliberate disinformation that we have so commonly seen in recent years.
60990. Albatross at 05:10 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       Hi Dikran, As you know, AGW is real (not a prediction) and it is happening now (again not a prediction) and it is already having costly impacts (e.g. Coumou and Rahmstorf 2012, Nature), both in terms of lives lost and fiscal losses. Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence that a global disaster is in progress, some continue to deny that we have a serious problem on our hands (e.g., the poster at #23 and #25).
60991. Bob Lacatena at 05:06 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       25, ScientificSkeptic, You have it backwards. You are being asked to gamble your comfort and lifestyle in about 20 years, and that of your children and grandchildren and all their descendants, against your "thought" that "the threat from AGW is rather exaggerated" (an opinion not shared by scientists, the people who actually know) and the unfounded fear that taking action is somehow going to "gamble our lifestyles." Mitigation now is not nearly that expensive or that bad. The Inhofe's and the Monckton's of the world want you to think so, but taking adequate action now is not going to cause suffering. Failing to take action that is required anyway due to increasing energy demands and falling fossil fuel resources, so that the people who hold those resources can make maximal profits before everything comes crashing down, that's the "gamble" of "our lifestyles." I suggest you use this site to learn more about the facts of the issue. Stop looking for the Hollywood extremes and pay attention to what the science really says.
60992. Rob Honeycutt at 04:24 AM on 27 March 2012
       Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
       Dana... Anthony's issue was with the interview Hadfield did with Sinclair. There is no transcript of that. In fact, I just got an email from Anthony rejecting my offer to transcribe the interview for him.
60993. jimb at 03:53 AM on 27 March 2012
       Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
       re 41- and my apologies to those magicians who can pull a real rabbit out of a real hat.
60994. dana1981 at 03:42 AM on 27 March 2012
       Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
       Hadfield provided a transcript - it's also provided in the above post, below the introduction, before the video.
60995. jimb at 03:16 AM on 27 March 2012
       Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
       I have been wondering if Monckton, when he gets back to his hotel room after the applause has died down, feels even slightly embarrassed by the quality of the audience he attracts. For some reason, it made me think of a professional magician who will not show his tricks at a magician's conference, but has to find an audience that is still amazed that he can pull a rabbit out of a hat.
60996. Dikran Marsupial at 03:05 AM on 27 March 2012
       An Open Letter to the Future
       ScientificSkeptic I don't think AGW will be the end of us as a species either. However I rather doubt that many people will think that is a good reason not to worry about it. I think it will almost certainly be the end of many human beings, whos life is worth exactly the same as yours or mine. I think it is also likely to cause a lot of hardship and misery in many parts of the world that don't have the resources to adapt to change as easily as we could. Most codes of behaviour are quite familiar with the concept of the "golden rule", i.e. treat others as you would wish them to treat you. I very much hope this will still be an important foundation of societies in 3000 years time. If not we will undoubtedly have regressed.
60997. Cornelius Breadbasket at 03:04 AM on 27 March 2012
       Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
       Just keep at it - your excellent work is obviously having an effect.
60998. Biophilia at 01:39 AM on 27 March 2012
       Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
       Ha, I guess this sucks, but at the same time, my response is "Oh no, people will know I care about climate change!~" In the next few decades and beyond, I highly doubt this will be problematic for me. "Shoot, people know I care about the well-being of future generations."
60999. martin3818 at 01:36 AM on 27 March 2012
       Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
       @John Cook #81 Thanks! No, the email address is no longer valid (since Dec 2011). Is there anyway, I can send you my email address without posting it openly? I would like to avoid spam attacks. Cheers, Martin
       Moderator Response: [DB] Send me an email here: profpbody at yahoo.com
61000. AnotherBee at 00:23 AM on 27 March 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       This may be slightly off-topic, but i have a question triggered by the Toon of the week... This is a Weather question (but with a climate underpinning). Currently, the UK is experiencing an unseasonal heatwave. The proximate cause is a jetstream blocking event, so we are under perpetual high pressure. I note ( from NSIDC that Arctic Sea Ice extent is relatively high (compared to the last few years only!). Is this a flipside of the same jetstream cause?

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] If you look at the areas where the ice is concentrated, you'll note that much of the recent gains in ice cover are in those areas about to melt out abruptly in the next 6 weeks:  The Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Sea, the Kara Sea, portions of the Barents Sea, Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay.

       

       [Source] [Map of the Arctic]

       Get your popcorn ready, the show is about to begin (best watched from here).  Relevant discussion is here, as well.

       As for the other part of your question, Real Climate has a post up on this here and Dr. Kevin Trenberth also has a paper out on much the same topic here.

       [Sph] Personally, I think the best show is here (only in the 21st century)

Prev  1212  1213  1214  1215  1216  1217  1218  1219  1220  1221  1222  1223  1224  1225  1226  1227  Next