Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 Next
Comments 61401 to 61450:
-
Tom Curtis at 18:33 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Doug H @202, I believe Manny has raised a legitimate point. The issue is that more than one factor can limit the growth of plants. With regard to energy, plants have two important sources of energy. Like all "cold blooded" creatures, the energy which drives the brownian motion within their cells, and hence powers the chemical operations of life comes from the environment, and is a simple consequence of the local surface temperature. As the temperature rises, the brownian motion becomes more vigorous so that chemical reactions (and hence growth) proceeds faster. Of coure, the characteristic of energy from the environment as heat is that it has a high entropy. Life cannot proceed without some reactions that result in a lower entropy than their surrounds, so all life also requires access to a low entropy energy source to drive these reactions. For plants, that is the energy from sunlight which they convert to low entropy sugars or starches. This does mean that at higher latitudes, available sunlight becomes a restriction of plant growth no matter what the temperature, because without sunlight there is no low entropy energy to drive the low entropy reactions that life needs. What Manny has pointed out is that, given that there is extensive forestation in western Europe at the same latitudes as the Canadian sub-arctic, it is the high entropy energy from the environment (warmth) which is the primary limiting factor at those latitudes. The assumption it was lack of the low entropy sunlight that restricted growth was not warranted. Indeed, given that plants do not just lie flat to the surface, but deploy their leaves to gain maximum sunlight, it is not clear that the geometric argument about sunlight carries any weight. Given that in a past era, there were forest at the South Pole, I would suggest that lack of direct sunlight is only ever a seasonal limitation of the growth of plants. -
Tom Curtis at 18:19 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
DSL @203, interesting about Plasmodium vivax. That it was not Plasmodium falciparum is made clear by the death rate of just 3% of those hospitalized with an infection in 1823. In contrast, Plasmodium falciparum that it creates a selective advantage for the sickle cell anemia gene which, though fatal if received from both parents, grants resistance to malaria if received from just one. The result is the strong correlation between Plasmodium falciparum and frequency of the gene for sickle cell anemia in the population (see maps below).
Of course, the concern with global warming is not the spread of vivax but of falciparum.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:02 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Bernard J @205, Mohyla has mistaken a simile for a literal description. As the "mistake" involves a typically ridiculous interpretation, there was IMO no basis for it. Therefore I presumed the "mistake" to be a debating technique and discussion with Mohyla to necessarily to be fruitless in that once people start to intentionally misunderstand you, they are not interested in sincere discussion. -
owl905 at 17:49 PM on 19 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
@chriskoz 33 You disagreed,and then commented about unrelated matters. The 0-700 metre layer isn't the issue on the table. Similarly, the response about 'other impacts' is off-topic about the heat returning. The issue of ivory tower and OHC is not my misunderstanding at all. The misunderstanding appears to be yours - thinking that geological age problems, and/or deep ocean heat that will partially return over the next millennium, is a concern that needs focus and will get any concerted action now. -
RonManley at 17:43 PM on 19 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
One useful rule of thumb relating to ice is: if all the glaciers melt sea levels will rise by 0.7 m, if Greenland melts by 7 m, if Antarctica melts by 70 m. Different sources give slighlty different figures but it's accurate enough to put things in perspective. -
owl905 at 17:35 PM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
@Sceptical - Inhoffe didn't personally question the science. He used his political power to ridicule it, slander it, and disrupt it. He's one of the ringleaders that has steered the USA towards the intelligence desert. Here's the bottom line on his judgment - "Global warming is the greatest hoax of all time." There's no 'question' in that - only judgment of the biggest pair variety. -
scaddenp at 17:29 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
I think Manny is confused as to why you have latitudal variation in climate. It is not due to differences insolation but to the many local influences on climate. For northern Europe, the warm Gulf Steam is the major factor. -
Bernard J. at 17:22 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Mohyla103:Bernard J.: "Glaciers do not impound water, they hold it as frozen mass." Did you mean that glaciers can be actual dams that hold liquid water back behind them, or that glaciers act like a dam in that they hold precipitation (snow, not rain) at a higher altitude? If it is the latter, then I misunderstood the phrase "natural dam" in your original statement.
Although I know what his answer is, you'd best direct the question at Tom Curtis, as he was the one who originally used the phrase. For someone who said:It's this attitude of alarming the public with misleading claims that make me skeptical of AGW reporting accuracy in general.
it's important to ensure that you are not transferring your own misunderstandings on to those who are in fact reporting accurately. This would seem to apply more broadly to your commentary here, as much of your scepticism appears to originate from a confusion over the actual science, and/or about what people mean when they report it. -
adelady at 17:11 PM on 19 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
I'm with OPatrick here. The "Week in Review" and "Coming Soon" should be the last 2 items. Always easy to find regardless of the length of the other items. Having 2 SkS Highlights looks a bit odd. Perhaps the second one should be "Spotlights" :) Just like last week.Moderator Response: [JH] My bad. Will edit. -
OPatrick at 16:59 PM on 19 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
I'd move the issue of the week up above the break. There must be many regular visitors who don't check the digest, having already digested. -
DSL at 16:05 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
And, Manny, I agree with Doug. What you're trying to say with the comparison between Canada and Europe is as clear as mud. -
Sceptical Wombat at 16:04 PM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
J Murphy @23 I don't have a problem with Inhofe questioning the science because it implied the need for expensive action. If my child told me he needed an IPad for school and I thought it was some kind of exercise book I would probably say "fine." If he then told me it was actually a computer and would cost aroud $600 I might start asking questions. I do have a problem with the fact that Inhofe is very selective about who he asks and only listens to the answers that fit his world view. -
DSL at 15:59 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Manny, Charles C. Mann has a quite readable chapter devoted to the spread of malaria post-1492 in his recent book 1493. The story is a little more complicated than you indicate. There is a range of malaria-carrying mosquitoes. There is also a range of human responses, based on genetics. The Canadian malaria mentioned was probably vivax rather than the falciparum mentioned in Epstein. -
bill4344 at 15:58 PM on 19 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Cartoonist link also ropey! Truly, when The Lorax is spruiking SUV's (and more than 70 other consumer products) we have reached a world where satire is redundant. Thneeds must when the Devil drives?Moderator Response: [JH] Link fixed. -
What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Manny - I would suggest looking at Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling, where atoll formation is discussed. Basically, corals only grow up to the low tide point, but early Holocene sea levels were (effectively) higher in equatorial seas due to isostatic adjustment (glacial rebound) - giving them the chance to grow a couple of meters over current sea levels. When local sea levels dropped to the point where high tide didn't cover the coral, they accumulated sand and debris as loose top consolidate - and we get atolls. -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:30 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Er ... Manny, can you explain your reasoning a little more? At a given latitude, on a revolving Earth, during a given 24-hour period, the amount of sunlight arriving will be the same at all longitudes, excluding the chances of a massive and short-lived sunspot occurring during that 24 hours. How do you work out that insolation will differ? The temperature difference you mention results form causes other than insolation, I would have thought. -
sidd at 14:58 PM on 19 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Thanks for the article. I posted a story of my own introduction to climate doom at the european tribune site a few years ago. www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/1/2/192917/8527 sidd -
Manny at 14:41 PM on 19 March 2012What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Simple question: if atolls are composed of coral and if coral grows in the sea, why are atolls above sea level? -
Manny at 14:26 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
You write: Agriculture: "the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth." All of Northern Europe, lush with agriculture and forests, is at the same latitude as the Canadian tundra where the brutal cold kills all trees, with only lichens surviving. Your argument is simply wrong. -
Manny at 14:14 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
You write: Health negatives. Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever. The article you quote (Epstein et al. 1998) states: "the minimum temperature for P. falciparum malaria parasite development is experimentally between 16° and 19°C and varies among mosquito species (Molineaux 1988). In general, isotherms present boundary conditions, and transmission is generally limited by the 16°C winter isotherm." This is simply wrong: malaria was endemic in Canada less than 100 years ago. A recent Canadian editorial (reference and quote below) quotes several old medical articles on this subject. The recent recurrence of malaria in developed countries is entirely due to increased air travels and drug-resistant Plasmodium. It has nothing to do with climate change. J. Dick MacLean, MD; Brian J. Ward, MD. The return of swamp fever: malaria in Canadians. Can Med Ass J JAN. 26, 1999; 160:211-212. "Malaria is an old Canadian disease. It was an important cause of illness and death in the past century in Upper and Lower Canada and out into the Prairies.1,2 During the period 1826–1832, malaria epidemics halted the construction of the Rideau Canal between Ottawa and Kingston, Ont., during several consecutive summers, with infection rates of up to 60% and death rates of 4% among the labourers.3 Malaria also appears to have had an important effect on the health of the Northwest Mounted Police in the Prairies.1 When the Montreal General Hospital opened, in 1823, 3% of the first 3665 patients admitted were ill with malaria, and 3% died in hospital as a consequence. Canada’s own William Osler popularized the use of the microscope for the diagnosis of malaria in North America in the late 19th century.4 The endemic malaria in North America was probably reinforced each spring by waves of infected immigrants from Europe. Several of our indigenous Anopheles mosquitoes were, and still are, capable vectors of human plasmodia." -
owl905 at 14:05 PM on 19 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
@Michael Sweet - the reference you challenged was to the whole ocean sink. That was the response. The heat below the thermocline, based on present knowledge, is going into long-term sequester. As responded, upper-layer heat exchange may effectively be up-to-date. Your substitution of CO2 as the topic (unless you believe they're joined at the hip) may belong in an ocean acidification thread. NOAA estimated 16% of the total was below the 3,000 metre-mark, and the 2003-2010 stutter-stagnation of the active upper-700 metre layer raises that estimate. The reason the graph only measures the upper 2000 metres is because that's the range of the Argo floats. This highlights an issue that's been known since the early 90s - the "how long will it take" - is dependent on vertical heat transfer between ocean layers. -
chriskoz at 14:02 PM on 19 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
citizenschallenge @46, I hope Glenn does not mind if I speak on his behalf, because I think he does not make the claim that "the ocean heat content is the only significant measurement", at least he didn't say that. In my understanding, the point of his article is to make an average reader realise that AGW as measured by change of ST is just "a tip of the iceberg" of the overall energy imbalance in the system. It's only in my comment @24 (also precised @33) where I said that OHC is better than LST (although I didn't say "only significant") indicator of GW, because it includes the potential warming in the pipeline. The timeline of the air warming could be quantified depending on how deep the heat has been sequestered, and I'm looking forward to the research on that subject. I understand that we cannot measure OHC accurately enough yet, so I've looking forward to the article explaining current state of the methodology as mentioned by Glenn @23. But I'm confident that when OHC measurement accuracy improves and the historical data on that subject becomes larger, we will improve our climate models and be able to predict ensuing climate changes far better and in advance. -
Bernard J. at 13:57 PM on 19 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Another prediction... ...somewhere a Denialatus - or several - will conflate the Carribean correction as needing to be applied to contemporary rise that presently occurs, and to future sea level that will occur in future, as a consequence of thermal expansion and ice melt. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:50 PM on 19 March 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Eric, Personal Housekeeping Robots. Flying cars. Jetpacks. Life on the moon and Mars. Are you really going to depend on predicted, timely advances in technology? With the exception of faster computers and mobile phones, how much has technology and life really changed since 1970? Even 1950. Seriously. What can you name that qualifies as a quantum leap from those time periods? You're putting all of your eggs into one basket that you don't have yet, and they've promised you the basket will be delivered within 20 years, or your money back... not. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:38 PM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
26, West129,...the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy.
This is not true. If you believe it's true, you've been listening to people who either don't know themselves or want you to believe it's true.Most likely the truth might fall somewhere in between both camps...
Um, no. That's like saying the truth between the earth and the sun being the center of the solar system must fall somewhere in the middle, or the truth between the earth being flat and round. There does not have to be a middle ground answer, and presuming that there must be, a priori, with no real reason to do so, is a huge mistake....scientists actually admit that they first, don't know what's going on with the climate...
Citation, please? Where exactly did you read this? Climate scientists know a whole heck of a lot, there is very little doubt on the issue, and for the most part the only people who think otherwise are very loud, very arrogant non-climate scientists. Please note that you are quoting from IPCC AR3... 2001, more than 11 years old. It refers to techniques and computing power 10 years ago. Do you think computers are a little faster now? Most of the models have advanced several versions since then. You are also misunderstanding what it is saying. The section in question is discussing the fact that because the system is chaotic no one model run is going to mirror events, but in the long run the averages will be the same. This is no different from writing a program to predict coin flips. The computer can't tell you the exact sequence of heads-tails that will turn up, but it can tell you the average number of heads and tails over a long enough period. The bottom line is that everything you believe and think you understand is wrong. Your perception of the state of the science is woefully incorrect. I'd advise you to make use of this site. Study things yourself. Learn for yourself what we do and do not know. Then make a decision. Right now, you're fighting a gun battle with no ammunition. -
owl905 at 13:37 PM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
@DougH 25 - works on my machine. Try this: Nature Editorial If it doesn't work, try another machine. :) -
scaddenp at 13:34 PM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
"because the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy. " Since that statement is complete nonsense, perhaps you could tell us why you believe it so we might be of some help? Type "Vahrenholt" into the search box to find out what the science says. Hint, if it isnt published in peer-reviewed science journals, then dont waste you time. Ditto for "both camps fight it out". Nothing of the sort, apply some skepticism. You quote the TAR (why not AR4 by way), in support of the statement "scientists admit they dont know whats going on". Bewildering. Can you point me to what statement make you think that? Better still, in your search for what is the truth, how about you point to some published science that you think make a strong case for the idea that conventional climate science is wrong (as opposed to disinformation from various sources). -
West129 at 13:21 PM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
I cannot make sense of the climate change discussion whatsoever. Who is right and who is wrong? Neither side has coherent and verifiable answers because the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy. Climate research has a long way to go before it even should be considered in formulating public policies or be used for fear mongering. Most likely the truth might fall somewhere in between both camps: One, that claims man is the culprit by burning carbon and carbon compounds the other camp who claims it's just mother nature's nature. What causes me to remain optimistic is the fact that the scientists actually admit that they first, don't know what's going on with the climate and second, they can't predict the future: IPCC-III-2001: 14.2.2.2 (Page 774), http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-14.pdf: “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” The other interesting read I just completed, “Die kalte Sonne” (“The Cold Sun” by Fritz Vahrenholt, Sebastian Luening, Verlag Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg, Germany), seems to confirm that the science is very much in flux, consensus has not been reached in the scientific community and that reality will most likely require backing off from the infantile notion that anthropogenic CO2 is the one omnipotent driver of the climate. It is refreshing to read that both camps are willing to fight it out (Thesis vs Antithesis) on the scientific as well as on the political stage (see https://climateis.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/climate-confusion-carbon-cops-sustainability-summit-march-17-20121.pdf as an example).Response:[dana1981] Please see Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change and the rebuttals to the myth 'There is no consensus'
-
CO2 limits will harm the economy
Eric (skeptic) - "...the sequestration will get cheaper with nano-tech and other technology cross fertilized from commercial uses..." You will still have the energy requirement to bind carbon again, reversing at least in part (depending on the final chemical makeup of the binding) the exothermic reaction of burning the fossil fuel in the first place. That's going to require at least as much energy as releasing it in the first place obtained - again. And where will you get that energy? I don't consider nanotech (having argued these issues with Eric Drexler at one point) a panacea, nor any other technical development. Such developments are just not predictable (otherwise I would have a flying car right now, next to my jet-pack), and every advance comes with tradeoffs of some sort. Personal opinion - we should do what we can with current approaches (renewables, minimum carbon energy sources, conservation), tax carbon usage to include external costs with the monies going towards both those externals (health care, pollution mitigation) and increasing less expensive supplies (renewables again). If future technical advances are helpful, by all means, we should use them. But we cannot depend on inventing ourselves out of the hole... -
Steve L at 12:38 PM on 19 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Shoot, I sometimes think that I'm starting to get the hang of this atmospheric science stuff (quite a feat for not having a single text book or course on the subject matter), but then I read a blog post like this and find out I'm still a couple of centuries behind. Thanks, I guess. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:31 PM on 19 March 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
scaddenp, I have not thought about how to mitigate ocean acidification, but other people have. The problem with applying a technological fix there is that the ocean are vast and neutralizing processes are bulk (e.g. liming, iron seeding, etc). Despite that problem there will be ways to apply technology to apply some sort of micro scale processing. I essentially agree with sphaerica that paying for ways to avoid turning solid or liquid carbon into gaseous carbon (e.g. alt energy) is much cheaper than processes to turn the gaseous carbon back into solid or liquid or otherwise sequester it. I don't think that is static though, the sequestration will get cheaper with nano-tech and other technology cross fertilized from commercial uses. I think geoengineering will come down in price as well, but not as much as sequestration (e.g artificial photosynthesis). I am only favoring a 1/4 to 1/3 cap and trade solution because paying for other infrastructure (e.g. dams in poor countries) has other benefits along with ameliorating the droughts and floods. It seems a lot simpler to pay for those with some sort of general fund than to try to estimate the costs of droughts and floods and apply that to the external costs of creating CO2. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:09 PM on 19 March 2012Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
scaddenp, you mean if dust cooling was overestimated then the sensitivity to CO2 was underestimated? IOW if increases in dust cool more in LGM then there is less need for cooling from lowering CO2 to arrive at LGM temperatures and if dust cools less then lowering CO2 must cool more. The paper says that the cooling from dust was offset by warmer clouds due to smaller ice crystals. If that is true, it means dust is not a major factor in cooling and CO2 sensitivity is higher. The authors have some uncertainty in their cloud nucleus analysis (could range from negative to positive cooling). Also I'm not sure if they consider all the weather impacts. It is possible that more dust means less cooling from weather due to less concentrated convection (that seems to apply to the present climate). Alternatively more nucleae could mean more precipitation and more cooling. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:39 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Old Mole, the Nature link is going to a status page at present. Either they are having network issues, or your link is incomplete (although I would have expected a 'page not found' error, if that was the case). -
ShadedX at 11:36 AM on 19 March 2012Climate's changed before
I read this somewhere in one of those textbooks on prehistoric life, but in the ages in and before the dinosaurs, there where no ice caps. And what about the switching of poles? -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:32 AM on 19 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
The links to the week's posts are malformed. The url contains strings like http://www.skepticalscience.com/\"http:/www.skepticalscience.com/Past-Estimates-of-Sea-Level-Rise_NSF.html\"Moderator Response: [JH] Links fixed. -
ShadedX at 11:31 AM on 19 March 2012It's the sun
Thanks skywatcher. Though seriouly, I don't believe that the sun effects the climate that much. I just wanted to see what you all had to contradict it. Just wondering: Is it me or are some of the "Response" comments bias? -
Old Mole at 11:21 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
muon @11 "Here is the so-called 'article in Nature' that Inhofe touts. It is in reality a column by David Adams in Nature News." There is also an editorial (no byline) in Nature, which can be found at the link below. Whoever did write it will be collecting brickbats for the foreseeable future. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7343/full/472260a.html Thanks for the other links. Mole -
JMurphy at 10:56 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Sceptical Wombat, to be even fairer, his exact words were : "I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost. When I started questioning the science..." Therefore, he thought it was true, didn't like the cost so, only then did he start to question the science. How can that be taken out of context when he makes it so clear himself ? -
ahaynes at 10:19 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
What I wish Maddow would do is "teach a man to fish," to find disinformation rebuttals. She could replay one of Inhofe's climate statements, then say to her audience "All right, how can we check this out?" and then, on air, go to Skeptical Science (or check her iPhone) and find and show the rebuttal. My impression is that even the science-aligned public does not yet know about Skeptical Science; when I surveyed a group recently and asked where you can go to check on a doubter talking point, nobody mentioned the site. Word needs to get out. -
yocta at 10:07 AM on 19 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
The links above aren't working I think there is some extra stuff in the "href" tag :)Moderator Response: [JH] Links fixed. -
Sceptical Wombat at 08:59 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
MonkeyOrchid @12 To be fair Inhofe did not say that he changed his mind about global warming because fixing it would cost too much. He did say that when he found out how much it would cost he decided to dig deeper and based on that digging concluded that it was not happening. From this one can conclude that, like many others, he did some very selective digging. I don't think that it is a good idea to imitate the fake skeptics' technique of out of context quotations. -
scaddenp at 07:53 AM on 19 March 2012Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
"In the LGM, the direct radiative forcing of soil dust aerosols is close to zero at the tropopause and −0.4Wm−2 at the surface." Source: Takemura et al 2008 Surely if aerosol forcing was underestimated at LGM, that would result in sensitivity being underestimated as well? -
Bob Lacatena at 07:40 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
I wish when they did these things that they put together a "war room" of google-wizards. Basically, the instant Inhofe (or whomever) says anything, have a dozen bright interns whizzing away on their keyboards, digging up the facts, getting screen caps, and passing them on to someone with a mike to the bud in her ear, telling her what they found and how to counter the flat out lies. It would be great if off the cuff Rachel could have come up with something better than "did, not! did, too!" For instance, that the Financial Times quote was only from an online blog post by someone who doesn't even work at FT anymore. -
owl905 at 07:07 AM on 19 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Sure ... except now during a long inter-glacial, the sea-shore is 70 feet above sea-level while an isostatic rebound theory suggests it should be closer to sea level. It should be 70' above plus the additional sea-level lowering when its end of the teeter-totter is looking at mile-high ice-sheets. They're addition of an additional 20-43' during an Ice Age doesn't address the current location. If they're suggesting the Hoxnian stretch of 50k years had the Bahamas slooowwwly sink to the sea, it should mesh with evidence from at least Nassau all the way to Turks&Caicos. For now, I'll stick with a local vertical push from below. But it's an interesting hypothesis ... better than "The Flood". -
r.pauli at 06:35 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
Rachel was far too polite. Inhofe knew she could be a pushover showcase for his book. It would have been more responsible of her to not give him a soapbox or be better informed. She was media-bullied by him. Is anybody contacting the show with offers to explain this better? Every show should have a climate expert contact So far the best media presentation comes out of Australia 3 years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0-j0O0o -
mohyla103 at 06:29 AM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
JMurphy I got a hold of a copy of the Singh, Jain and Kumar paper. As expected, there is no mention whatsoever of glacial melt separate from snow melt. In this study, they were calculated together and, in fact, not even directly measured. FYI the study was completed with data collected over 10 years, so the figures presented are averages. Nowhere in the paper does it give a "maximum percentage possible" that you had asked about, so for Barnett's figures to be referring to that isn't possible. Here's one relevant section, from page 52, showing that the author of this paper did not distinguish between glacial melt and snow melt in this study: "Snow and glacier contribution to the 10 years' volume of flow in the Chenab River at Akhnoor has been estimated using the following water balance approach: Snow + glacier runoff volume = Observed flow volume - (rainfall volume - evapotranspiration)" Barnett was definitely correct to cite this paper in saying that glaciers provide a key source of water in the summer, of course. Page 51: "In the post-monsoon season, flow is believed to be from the glaciers and occasional rainfall events in the basin. In general, glacier contribution starts in June/July and continues until September/October." But that's all it says. There are no percentages given here for glacial melt. There is a table on page 51 showing the "Average quarterly distribution of annual flows" where we learn that the water flowing in the July-Sept period represents 51.1% of the annual flow. However, this is once again not referring to glacial melt alone, as flow in the July-Sept period comes from rain, glaciers and snow. Singh et al. confirm this in the discussion below the table where they say "[t]he higher contribution to the annual flow from the pre-monsoon season (April-June) and the monsoon season (July-September) is due to the combination of rain, and snow and glacier-melt runoff." One more relevant bit, from the Conclusion section on page 56: "2. It was found that snow and glacier-melt runoff contribute significantly to the total runoff of the Chenab River at Akhnoor. Based on 10 years of data analysis, the average snow and glacier-melt contribution to the annual flow of Chenab at Akhnoor was found to be 49.10 percent. The remainder is contributed by rainfall." In conclusion, Barnett was wrong to cite this paper as evidence that glaciers contribute 50-60% of the flow in this river, either for the summer or a yearly average. It is actually glacier and snow melt together (and technically it's not 50 it's 49). The peer-review process missed this error. Please acknowledge this, as I am no longer arguing based on incomplete information. Considering the same kind of wording and figures appear in the abstracts of the other 2 papers cited by Barnett for this claim, I strongly suspect he and the reviewers committed the same error there. To Barnett's credit, the summary at the beginning of the article actually does mention snowpack and glaciers, not just glaciers alone. -
owl905 at 06:28 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
It's all in how you position the discussion. Score another card-trick victory for the pro-pollutionists. Comparing traceable lobby efforts from the smokers to environmental groups efforts is where numbers score a triumph over common sense (neither the first nor the last). The smokers spent $294mil (traceable) to fight a pollution cleanup of their own creation. It's like BP decding to spend all the money claiming Macondo was a natural variation in the Gulf bedrock - and they're not going to clean it up. This is isn't about comparison - it's 'what the smell is the Energy Industry doing spending all that money defending their pollution?' ... We're just lucky they're not in charge of the garbage collection. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:26 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
I agree with Pieter. I get the sense that Rachel and her amazing team are not as up on the climate change issue as maybe they could be. That leaves Inhofe an open window to gish gallop his way through the interview. It was interesting, too, that Inhofe mentioned Michael Moore in a discussion on his book on global warming. I think he may have meant Michael Mann being that Moore does nothing regarding the AGW issue. I could be wrong but it sure seemed odd. The other thought I had was, I would guess that Inhofe did not write his book but instead used a ghost writer, since he didn't seem to know what Maddow was talking about with the reference to her in his book. Instead of addressing it Rachel let Inhofe change the subject. -
scaddenp at 06:26 AM on 19 March 2012CO2 limits will harm the economy
Some points. Firstly, expect fuel price to go up anyway. Look at IEA reports on effects of delayed investment in MENA. Combatting climate change is really about coal. Does your cap-trade money also pay for infrastructure improvements to ameliorate climate change effects in countries that have negligible contribution to global warming? And what is your geoengineering solution to ocean acidification? I would be rather surprized if the cost of effective geoengineering was cheaper than moving to non-carbon generation. -
funglestrumpet at 06:20 AM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
monkeyorchild @ 12 Of course the laws of physics bend and change according to America's financial situation! Money seems to be the only thing that nation worships. I imagine they even believe that you have to pay an entrance fee to get into heaven. Honestly, what self-respecting god would miss such an obvious business opportunity? Not one that blesses America, for sure. I imagine the likes of Inhofe and the Tea Party believe that they will be able to solve climate change, in the unlikely event it proves necessary, by slipping the big fella a few dollars to prove Lindzen's numbers for climate sensitivity to be correct. Let's face it, it is going to take something like an act of god to do that. But of course, they are going to have to get to heaven first. Unfortunately for them, If their behaviour has the results it is on course to, it will be "Tea break over you miserable wretches, get back to stoking those fires!" If you believe in all that sort of thing, of course.
Prev 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 Next
