Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 Next
Comments 62301 to 62350:
-
OPatrick at 08:05 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Paul Magnus: "That escalator one is a gem and is undeniable!" Ha! Undeniable! Was that naivety or caustic humour? -
WheelsOC at 07:56 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
I'd like to clarify that it was Hank Roberts who pointed out the early origin for the graph in comments at the original RC post. I just brought his discovery to the discussion in the comments over here. I haven't watched Lindzen's presentation or read his slides, so I don't know how he handled Hayden's argument or attributed the graph. -
Paul Magnus at 07:31 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Great forum. On review, it would be very good to get simply constructed graphics like the escalator for some of the essential topics. That escalator one is a gem and is undeniable! -
OPatrick at 07:30 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
On a different tack, I like the idea of leftover-mastercheffing. I've been thinking for a while that there's a place for 'real-life masterchef', where contestants are faced with a fridge full of half finished jars and bottles, a few wilted vegetables and some unidentifiable green fur. -
Norman at 07:27 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
muoncounter @ 36 Here is one for you Graph and data on increase in earthquakes both large and small. DATES FROM & TO PERIOD NO. EARTHQUAKES (Mag. > 6.99) --------------------------- ----------- ------------------------------ 1863 to 1900 incl 38 yrs 12 1901 to 1938 incl 38 yrs 53 Reference list 1901 to 1938 1939 to 1976 incl 38 yrs 71 Reference list 1939 to 1976 1977 to 2014 incl * 38 yrs 164 (to Mar. 2011) predict >190 in total. Reference list 1977 to date -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:58 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman... At comment 28 you state, "You know the severe tornado (F3 to F5 scale)number has been trending down over the years in the US..." But the NOAA data you cite clearly states that, "The bar chart below [which you cite] indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years." -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:44 AM on 9 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
@Sascha there is a pretty good correlation between the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 and temperature, probably because ENSO affects both temperature and the carbon cycle (I don't know off-hand whether it is because of the change in ocean temperatures in the Pacific directly, or because it affects CO2 uptake by terrestrial biosphere in the Western Americas, or both). This correllation has caused some to suggest that the rise in CO2 is driven by temperature, e.g. Roy Spencer (it is ironic that he plots a graph very similar to the one in my article, but fails to appreciate the key issue, which is that even taking the variation into account, the natural environment is always a net sink). However, taking the difference between this years CO2 and last years to get the annual rise totally eliminates the linear trend, so the correlation only really tells you about the year to year variability, but tells you nothing about the long term trend. So in short, you are seeing a genuine correlation between temperature and CO2, but the correlation is most noticeable in the variability, and a long term rising trend in temperatures is exactly what you would expect if CO2 levels are rising. HTH -
JMurphy at 06:34 AM on 9 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103, as you were the one who made the original accusations, i.e. : misleading claims that make me skeptical of AGW reporting accuracy in general; Glaciers and annual snowfall are quite different things but Barnett seems to ignore the difference.; After checking the three sources for these figures, I find this claim to be very misleading!; and But I hope you'll agree, that Barnett's paper is misleading and a misrepresentation of data., then it is incumbent on you to back up those accusations by quoting the relevant actual figures to show where they have been misused. So far, you have been unable to because, as you later admitted : I didn't read the full paper of any of those three as I don't have free access to them., and you tried to justify this by claiming : The figures are already present in the abstracts though, so I would still consider my statement valid.. However, as you have already admitted with regard to the Singh & Bengtsson paper : How big is the fraction from glaciers? If 5/6 of summer runoff comes from glaciers (that seems pretty generous, but without further evidence I admit it's possible) then Barnett would still be OK using a figure of 50%, but any less and Barnett's figure wouldn't be accurate. Without searching the full text of the paper for a percentage for glacier melt specifically, we have no way of proving or disproving this. Considering his sloppy use of the other 2 sources, I don't have much confidence in his referencing of this source either.. So, you don't know what the actual relevant percentage is but you still feel justified in making your original accusation anyway, because of your reading of the other two abstracts. I'm sorry but that is not the sign of someone who wants to discover the truth, but someone who has already made their mind up and will not change it, no matter what. How can anyone confidently make the accusations you have without first checking whether there was at least some justification in what you are claiming ? This is why, when you finally come out with : However, I'll take your lack of comment on the other 2 sources as agreement that Barnett's misrepresented the data in saying that "melting glaciers provide....50-60% of the flow" in these rivers. It is not melting glaciers alone, but the combination of melting glaciers and melting snowpack., I have to say 'What is the point ?' It would appear that you are not here to discuss, but only to make baseless accusations and to stick to your beliefs come what may. I have read exactly the same abstracts as you have but I know that only reading the full papers will give the answers to any queries you might have. I also have confidence that those who have produced all the papers referred to did so using figures that have been checked and confirmed by others. Until you have proof otherwise, I suggest you withdraw your accusations. -
Pete Wirfs at 06:18 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I suspect that anyone who is entrenched ideologically to "believe" one side or the other will never change their minds. There were people that believed the horse and buggy was a better form of transportation than the automobile that were never convinced, but they eventually died. I also suspect that even in these types of well thought out presentations, the very fact that it repeats myths for the purpose of debunking also has an unintended consequence of reinforcing the myths for those that believe in them. (See? She tried to debunk it but I don't believe her argument! Ha!) I have no answer for how our society can convince the deniers. As in the case of the horse and buggy, some times you just have to wait for them to disappear. I admit I am personally entrenched in the ideological belief that what the majority of our climate scientists says is true. Since I am not a scientist myself, I must choose to believe one way or the other based upon information that others have written. -
scaddenp at 06:07 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Andy, that link does not lead to such a paper. -
Sascha Tavere at 05:50 AM on 9 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
@ Dikran Marsupial If I look at the RSS AMSU temperature series next to the Mauna Loa CO2 emmission series (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), I have the impression there is some correlation. I searches for a lag-time for a CO2 effect and didn't find it. Ofcourse the commulative effect is the most important but am I seeing spooks in this more immediatebut perhaps illusionay correlation? -
muoncounter at 05:30 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman#34: "the current increase in strong earthquake number?" Is this a documented increase or just a case of observation bias? From the USGS: 99 year average number of mag > 6: 150 2007: 196 2008: 180 2009: 161 2010: 175 2011: 205 Doesn't look like much of a trend, especially when the standard deviation is on the order of +/-35. And pre-1957, there weren't that many seismograph stations around the world, so that century average of 150 is biased low. Some will say that there is no evidence of the lack of an increase; others that there is no evidence of there not being a pause in the increase. Others will no doubt claim the USGS is just inflating the number of earthquakes just to gain more funding. Either way that has little to do with the fact that this is yet another 'extreme weather is on the increase thread.' -
funglestrumpet at 05:29 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Albatros @ 2 Hanson has been giving a talk at TED2012 and it is well worth watching, especially by those who are still in doubt about Climate Change. He not only talks from the heart, but as we on this side of the fence are fully aware, he actually knows what he is talking about. Perhaps a better description would be that he is the exact opposite of Monckton. -
KR at 05:23 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - "...how come the Munich Re chart does not reflect an increase in the number of 6+ magnitude earthquakes..." You've already been answered. As Glenn Tamblyn noted to you, the Munich Re data shows catastrophes as they have defined - and any large earthquake will qualify. Regarding tornadoes - NOAA reports an average of ~950/year from 1970-1990, ~1200/year from 1990-now. That's a trend. The 30-40/year EF3-EF5 represent a tiny portion with high variability, and quite frankly I don't think strong conclusions can be drawn from the existing data on those. You are quibbling about (a) data the Munich Re charts didn't claim to show, data not relevant to the point of the OP, and (b) about extremely small numbers for high-end tornadoes against a large trend in total tornado numbers. -
pvincell at 05:19 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Either way, if it were me, I would issue a retraction, even if it were a trivial issue (which this is not, of course). Thanks for keeping us educators informed, Skeptical Science folks. -
DSL at 04:52 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I also suspect that it might be better not to ask about "changing minds." Keep it in the realm of ideas, and don't ask people to critique their ability to learn. You might do a pre-test/post-test, but delay the post-test for about six months. Let the pudding cook for a while. -
Norman at 04:52 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @ 32 If this is a useful tool, how come the Munich Re chart does not reflect an increase in the number of 6+ magnitude earthquakes. I am pointing out it does not reflect reality of event numbers. How then can you use this graph as evidence that climate is getting worse when it does not accurately portray what is going on in the geophysical realm of the current increase in strong earthquake number? -
Norman at 04:49 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
John Hartz @30 Here is a NOAA Graph of F3 to F5 tornadoes.
source.
Moderator Response: [JH} Exactly, how did you derive a trend from this graphic? What statisitical methods did you employ? [RH] Fixed image width. -
DSL at 04:44 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
The fear of being wrong publicly (and the humiliation that we've been trained to think naturally goes with it) keeps most people from presenting their beliefs and the sources of those beliefs. Having people talk with each other in small groups as peers (within the context) first is a good idea. It allows people to defuse the public spectacle, to look at each other as humans and recognize that the event is a co-learning experience rather than a banking-model experience. Of course, all it takes to ruin such an excellent social situation is one or two crackpot ideologues who have access to the Absolute Truth and respond with terminal intent to any challenge or question. Many people--even those who feed themselves from the ideological trough--probably suspect that there's something to the science. It is, after all, very hard to completely toss aside that whole epistemological project. Working with suspicions is better than working with Absolute Truths, and pure lecture tends to come off as Absolute Truth too often (and, in the classroom, often quite unintentionally). Bring out the suspicions in a comfortable, safe, and friendly environment, and then bring forth the science, very carefully and one key chunk at a time. New understandings, like eggs, must be tempered before they are added to a hot mix (and AGW is certainly a hot mix). Small, un-shiny, local events like this need to occur all over the place--in the sticks, the burbs, and the cities. I think I'll do something like this over the summer, if my local experts aren't off in woods doing research. Maybe there should be a SkS Local Outreach team--a mod-accessible listing of people who would be willing to travel up to 50 miles or so to put on a workshop/discussion. Room and board provided by the requester. -
Composer99 at 04:36 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I suspect that it is easier to publically agree that a climate science myth has been satisfactorily busted without also publically admitting that one's mind has been changed about climate science (if indeed many minds required changing), even if the mythbusting will eventually result in changing of mind. The former agreement does not entail loss of face; the latter admission does - IMO of course, since I am ignorant of the literature on the topic. -
dana1981 at 04:28 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
pvincell - correct, except that it appears to be Howard Hayden who made this error, and Lindzen simply used Hayden's plot without verifying its accuracy (see the green box at the top of the post). It's certainly possible that Hayden simply clicked the wrong data set in one instance, but Lindzen should have known better than to uncritically accept a plot posted on Junk Science (or wherever he got it) which accuses other scientists of data manipulation without verifying its accuracy. -
Martin at 04:18 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Perhaps next time you should ask right at the beginning how many believe that at least one of these skeptic statements has merit? Of course, there might be quite a number of undecided people who simply believe that the science isn't settled. Anway, it sounds like you enjoyed yourself. -
Sapient Fridge at 03:52 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Admitting that you were wrong and have changed your mind is hard, especially in public. I wonder how many people silently change their minds and just change their stance next time the issue comes up? -
pvincell at 03:48 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
If I understand correctly, Dr. Lindzen is plotting the difference between two datasets but presenting it as the difference between two versions of the same dataset. Is this correct? (I am a biologist, not a climate scientist, so I am asking for verification.) If so, I can't explain how a scientist would do such a thing. -
Martin Lack at 03:44 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
#52 All they have to do is tell me investigation yes/no. In other words, something more than an automated reply (which I did not get). They do not need to find him innocent/guilty in 7 days. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that it may take MIT 6 weeks to investigate. I have certainly given them plenty to read. #55 Your comments are noted but, Lindzen does not hold back on the mockery and denigration of the expertise of others. I have also complained to my MP and suggested that Lindzen may have slandered their Chief Scientist and/or UK-based IPCC contributory authors. -
Sapient Fridge at 03:10 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Martin I followed your link and understand what you are saying, but I don't think melodromatic statements such as "he is in a prison of denial from which death will probably be his only escape" are helpful. IMHO. You might want to dial it back a notch or two. -
dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Sounds like a cool event. Too bad they missed out on the Escalator! Do you know how many were 'skeptics' to begin with? -
dana1981 at 03:03 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
The final 2 data points in the Escalator, which are only based on ~40 Antarctic stations, are kept intentionally because the 'skeptics' used those data points to argue that global warming had stopped. However, if you prefer, there is a version using NOAA data which is more up-to-date and does not have the incomplete data points. -
KR at 02:44 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - "It is not so easy to find data of actual events independent of people to see if the trend is increasing as stated in the OP." Which is why including geophysical events is useful to try to tease out the population coverage versus climatic influences. Which is the real value of the Munich Re and Swiss Re data. WRT tornadoes, the NOAA data, Fig. 1 on observed tornadoes shows an upwards trend over the years, which as they clearly state is due in large part to increases in observations. F5 tornadoes are fairly rare events, more easily observed - and are not showing a significant trend. Looking at the last 30 years of tornado events, as per NOAA, McCarthy and Schaefer, Fig. 1, the last 15 years or so have seen a higher tornado frequency overall. Tornado days (Fig. 2) are not showing a trend, but damages due to F0 storms (Fig. 3) are again much higher over the last 15 years or so. If you have evidence to the contrary, a reference would be good. -
Nichol at 02:26 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Unfortunately, there is no way that truthseekers can win from those that simply repeat their wrong arguments. What is even worse: the only answer is to repetitively debunk them. I very much admire the untiringly persistent and polite debunking at this site. It must be very tiring. But it is necessary. And Martin .. I feel your sense of urgency and anger. Maybe your methods are further from the science, but nearer to the way to fight this: like a political activist. Activists make use of the same advertising/PR-technique of repetition, repetition, repetition. It works. It is the way the world works, unfortunately. -
John Hartz at 02:25 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
“When at least 80 tornadoes rampaged across the United States, from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, last Friday, it was more than is typically observed during the entire month of March, tracking firm AccuWeather.com reported on Monday. “According to some climate scientists, such earlier-than-normal outbreaks of tornadoes, which typically peak in the spring, will become the norm as the planet warms.” Source: “Scientists see rise in tornado-creating conditions” by Sharon Begely, Reuters, Mar 5, 2012 To access this timely article, click here. -
funglestrumpet at 02:10 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
post 52 is in response to post 51 - for some reason this got deleted twixt preview and submitting. -
funglestrumpet at 02:08 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Can I recommend that you pause a while and take stock. You seem to be as annoyed as I am that people such as Lindzen can, for what seems to be the sake of appearances, deliberately refuse to concede that they might be wrong and endanger us and our children and grandchildren into the bargain. He is not alone in refusing to admit to being wrong. I have a friend who was a science teacher before retiring. He is never ever wrong on any issue, not just scientific ones. There is no winning with him, nor, I suspect, Lindzen. And let's face it, Lindzen and those like him lead a good life. They are revered wherever they go and I'll bet they don't pay their expenses out of their own pocket, so there is an incentive to follow a formula that works for them if only because it gives them a better life than that of most of those that revere them. Monckton, who flits from limelight to limelight, will, on the other hand, never admit publicly that he is wrong for psychological reasons and in some ways is to be pitied, as indeed are his and Lindzen’s acolytes. I don’t think that setting deadlines, such as your demand for a response within seven days, is going to get you far. It is probably impossible for MIT to assemble their committee that deals with such matters as professional misconduct within such a short time. In any event, it would be a strange University that was oblivious of the behaviour of one of their professors on such a prominent public issue, especially seeing as said professor is running very much against the tide. If you put yourself in their shoes, they will probably take offence at being dictated to and ignore your correspondence – hardly a ‘win win’ situation. I will not advise on what you should do after pausing to take stock, other than to suggest that you gather round you wise heads and plot a strategy that will get you the goals you seek. Oh, one other comment: It is perfectly o.k. to write a strongly worded letter, just so long as you don’t send it. As a solicitor once said to me: You win more with honey than you do with sh*t. Think on and good luck. From my perspective, I think that the issue of climate change is so grave that a case can be made for charging deniers in positions of influence with committing a crime against humanity unless they can show good scientific reasons for holding the views that they do and that those views have not been properly debunked by their peers. Perhaps that is a route to follow with Lindzen if you don’t get MIT to respond to you, try to get him in The Hague instead. -
John Hartz at 01:21 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
@ Norman #28: What is the source of your assertion that the number of severe tornadoes in the US is trending downwards? -
fpjohn at 00:21 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
re Norman@21 This may be of interest [link] [link] [link] sign up required. yours FrankModerator Response:[RH] Hot linked URL's that were breaking the page format.
[DB] Fixed URLs.
-
Martin Lack at 23:22 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Can all readers, even if you don't look at any of my other posts on my blog, please read this one: Lindzengate - an update report (8 March 2012). It could change the course of human history (or at least your response to it could)! -
Norman at 23:06 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Glenn Tamblyn @26 I did read your post @16. The point I was making was not to show an upward trend in earthquakes. It was just to show that there were more in the 2000 decade than the 1990 decade. It seems odd that allow in reality there were more large earthquakes in the 2000 decade the Munich Re graph shows a decline in the number of geophysical catastrophes. The point I am making is this Munich Re graph is not a useful tool in determining if events are increasing. We know large earthquakes have increased but have not resulted in more catastrophes. More large earthquakes in 2000's actually led to fewer natural catastrophes counted as compared to the 1990's. I think the evidence I presented will show the Munich Re graph is good for one thing and that is for insurers to determine rates. It is not a good tool to determine if storms or floods are on the increase as it is not designed to make that determination. Only an actual event count can be a valid tool to make such a determination, not a disaster or catastrophic count (dependent on people and property which is a sliding variable on many scales...people move around, want better things and the overall population increases over time). You know the severe tornado (F3 to F5 scale)number has been trending down over the years in the US, yet the Munich Re graph shows a trend upward from storm related catastrophes. So the actual number of severe tornadoes is down but the catastrophe count is up. I keep seeing this Munich Re graph used on Skeptical Science to demonstrate Climate Change but I still believe it is a poor tool to use. Other sources should be investigated that have an actual event count. -
OPatrick at 22:54 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Dick, that version of the graph was used by 'sceptics' (e.g. in the Daily Mail here) -
funglestrumpet at 21:11 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
dana1981 @ 47 I do keep old copies and I can assure you that Monckton Misrepresentations part 3 does not appear as a primary reference on any of the emails that I have received. It does appear as a link in Part 1 with the words "(as we will see here in Part 3)". It now does cover the topic, but obviously did not at the time because it was a future event.) I can find no primary notice of Part 3 (or part 2 other than another link in Part 1, for that matter) in the daily emails. I will freely admit to not being the brightest light on the Christmas tree, so it might be that I am missing something blindingly obvious. However, if we are supposed to hunt for links in other posts, I humbly suggest that it would be better for future multi-part posts to have each part treated as a primary post and notified as such in the daily email, if only so that thickos like me and 99% of WUWT can follow. On a completely separate topic, can we notify all and sundry that James Hanson has just given a really good talk on climate change to TED2012 (TED.com/talks)? He not only talks from the heart, but as we on this side of the fence are fully aware, he actually knows what he is talking about. Perhaps a better description would be that he is the exact opposite of Monckton. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:35 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
So Hanrahan knows we'll all be rooned.... ...Unless we chew a piece of bark The cadences of old bush language is just about gone, sadly. The Suburban working class language of 3 cars and a big McMansion on a tiny block of land is no substitute. And when you mix the bush language with Australias re-invention of Cockney Rhyming Slang there was something magical. Redheads were called Bluey, people with straight hair called Curly, and the millions of terms for someone not to bright - 'he's a couple of sheep short in the top paddock' made for an amazingly rich language. Now we all speak 'motivated speak', or 'management speak', or 'ernest & concerned speak' or 'gung-ho tradie speak' or 'Focused and Committed Sportsman speak' or 'Rap speak' or 'EMO speak' or something. All so bland.... -
RonManley at 19:25 PM on 8 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Dave123 I tried splitting the data in two. The parameters were very similar for both periods. As I've said I don't make claims for this 'model' as a model. Think of it more as an educational toy. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:19 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman. The Munich Re data is about number of events defined as catastrophic. If a 6+ event occcurs and a 5+ event occurs, they may both be catastrophic. This measure produced by Munich Re doesn't differentiate once an event is above the threshold for catastrophic. They are counting events not severity. So any event - geophysical or other - will have different impacts depending on where it occurs. But what we are looking for is a signal showing how common an event is and how this may be changing over time. Increasing storms in the Bay of Bengal may have huge impacts on people. Increasing storms in Hudson Bay would have a much lower impact on people. But it would still be an indicator of changing climate patterns. Also, if you read my comment at 16, I personally wouldn't place that much credence in supposed trends on scales of decades. It is easy to imagine how one geophysical event could be linked to subsequent events physically. If I was looking for trends I would look at Century timescales at a minimum. Just as Climate has an inertia that imposes decadal timescales, geophysical has an inertia that imposes century and higher timescales -
Martin Lack at 19:08 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
It seems to be often repeated that we are merely complaining about one or two graphs in Lindzen's talk and/or that this does not matter because they did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. What kind of myopic tunnel vision is this? Just about every single slide (certainly every single graph) was either incompetently-drafted or intentionally-misleading. (There is also the case of the missing slide @28:30 in the video). There are no other options. As James Hansen has said, in Storms of my Grandchildren, Lindzen appears to behave like a lawyer presenting only information and argument favourable to his client, appears not to be seeking the truth – only a win for his client, and, as such, policy inaction appears to be the aim of those (like him) that dispute global warming. What other explanation is there? If my complaint does not work, does not all of the above appear to be good grounds for a complaint by someone connected with MIT? Please feel free to adapt my wording above (#45). Will someone other than me please locate some moral courage and take action? -
Rob Painting at 18:51 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Dick - the weird end point is due to data only from Antarctica temperature stations being incorporated into the BEST temperature series at that time. Why they didn't wait for further data to come in before release is unknown. I agree - it creates confusion. Dana's very busy at the moment, but maybe he'll update the animation in the coming months. -
Dick Veldkamp at 18:11 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
@5 Chriskoz Thank you for your explanation. However I do not see any mention of the weird end point in the link you give; only the general mechanism is given (which is of course perfectly obvious to anybody unbiased). It may be good to explain the weird end point explicitly, because a small thing like that is used by the denialists to cast doubt on the whole graph. PS If I overlooked something, apologies. -
Doug Hutcheson at 18:08 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Yes, O'Brien is one of my favourite bush poets. You do realise, don't you, that he is taking the Mickey out of the persistent denier who ignores the evidence? Very apt, actually. -
DLB at 18:02 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Being on the other side of the AGW debate I can't resist this Australian bush poem by John O'Brien. "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, In accents most forlorn, Outside the church, ere Mass began, One frosty Sunday morn. The congregation stood about, Coat-collars to the ears, And talked of stock, and crops, and drought, As it had done for years. "It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad, For never since the banks went broke Has seasons been so bad." "It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, With which astute remark He squatted down upon his heel And chewed a piece of bark. And so around the chorus ran "It's keepin' dry, no doubt." "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." "The crops are done; ye'll have your work To save one bag of grain; From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke They're singin' out for rain. "They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry." The congregation scratched its head, And gazed around the sky. "There won't be grass, in any case, Enough to feed an ass; There's not a blade on Casey's place As I came down to Mass." "If rain don't come this month," said Dan, And cleared his throat to speak - "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week." A heavy silence seemed to steal On all at this remark; And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed a piece of bark. "We want an inch of rain, we do," O'Neil observed at last; But Croke "maintained" we wanted two To put the danger past. "If we don't get three inches, man, Or four to break this drought, We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." In God's good time down came the rain; And all the afternoon On iron roof and window-pane It drummed a homely tune. And through the night it pattered still, And lightsome, gladsome elves On dripping spout and window-sill Kept talking to themselves. It pelted, pelted all day long, A-singing at its work, Till every heart took up the song Way out to Back-o'-Bourke. And every creek a banker ran, And dams filled overtop; "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop." And stop it did, in God's good time; And spring came in to fold A mantle o'er the hills sublime Of green and pink and gold. And days went by on dancing feet, With harvest-hopes immense, And laughing eyes beheld the wheat Nid-nodding o'er the fence. And, oh, the smiles on every face, As happy lad and lass Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place Went riding down to Mass. While round the church in clothes genteel Discoursed the men of mark, And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed his piece of bark. "There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, There will, without a doubt; We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." -
Andy Skuce at 17:32 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
There was a recent (2010) group of papers published by the Royal Society that linked climate change and non-atmospheric disasters. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2311.full.pdf -
cornish_oceanographer at 16:58 PM on 8 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
Furthermore (and I apologise for having no references to back this up) but in my opinion some of the skeptic community are likely financially backed by various think-tanks or pro-industry groups. It's likely in these cases that private backing is not transparent or open to the public whereas research scientists pay grades in the university and research council sector are openly public. -
cornish_oceanographer at 16:54 PM on 8 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
184 - PRussell With regards to money while I accept that there are some good scientists who have made serious money by publishing books the reality is the majority of us in natural/earth/climate sciences earn relatively far less than in commerical technical applied science. In the UK for example, I studied oceanography because I love science and I love the oceans. In this process I ended up with student loan debt. However I followed my passions and maintained in research science. Post-doctorial 3 year research contacts in universities and institutes is frequently in the £20 to £30k bracket, yet if one choses to turn to private companies (e.g. geologists to the Oil and Gas sector, oceanographers to offshore construction, medical researchers to pharmeceutical companies) they will be earning vastly larger sums. As research academimcs, higher earning begins via climbing the university ladder as lecturers or heads of department which does pay more - but often the reality then is that these people get little time to research as they have managerial and or teaching responsibilities.
Prev 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 Next
