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:
-
Tom Curtis at 18:00 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman @46:"Without having a very good and detailed understanding of how this Munich Re graph was generated and what is the criteria they are using to define a catastrophic event, why is this graph used so often on this rigerous scientific web site?"
You and I have been through this in great detail before. Specifically, it has been clearly explained to you that a Natural Catastrophe is defined as a natural hazard causing the death of at least one person, or causing property damage. What is more, we have gone into considerable detail into how Munich Re classifies data, going to the extent of the indexing system they use to account for inflation. This is all detailed in Structure and needs of global loss databases of natural disasters by Löw and Wirtz. However, your pretense that this has not been thoroughly discussed previously on SkS, and that it is not understood by SkS authors is dishonest. -
Norman at 17:39 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR I did address your point in Post #41. I wrote this to you: "If you look at the data yourself you can see clearly that the large earthquake number has increasesd in the short run (1980-2012). The USGS may be making a reference to Earthquakes from early decades, maybe from 1900 to 2012 there is no increase." They list all global earthquakes of magnitude 6+ here. Just add up the numbers, put the year and the number and generate a graph and select make a linear trend and tell me what you see. That would be the approach of a scientist to actually enter the data and see what comes out. Again, the Munich Re graph begins at 1980 to present so that is the only years of concern. The actual facts are that magnitude 6 and greater earthquake number has increased from 1980 to present. If you enter the data yourself, please explain how you come up with the conclusion that my presentation is misleading and cleary incorrect data interpretations. Thanks. -
Norman at 17:27 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @ 47 Have you put the data from the USGS webpage for 6+ earthquakes (global) on an Excel spreadsheet yes and had it calculate a trend? I have done so and there is an upward trend. No Confirmation Bias. Just logging the data given on a spreadsheet and having the program draw the trend line. Try this and then conclude I am wrong, you will not be able to do this. -
GillianB at 16:40 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Hey John! I was there on the night and I can see myself in a couple of the pics. My strong impression was that the vast majority of the audience were already convinced about climate change. We put forward myths we heard, not myths we believed. You did a good job of explaining things. You were friendly and knowledgeable. Your metaphor of the open fridge door to explain the impact of the warming Arctic on a colder EU has stayed in my mind. Tricky concepts that appear to be counter intuitive need graphic metaphors. Just as this website has an archive of scientific explanations and of images, perhaps it could also hold a metaphor archive. The approach of letting the audience set the agenda was excellent because it set up an active learning environment. In future perhaps you could avoid/minimise the 'chalk and talk' that makes the audience passive, and go straight to the Q+A section. -
KR at 16:34 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - "I do not believe you are reading my posts..." Yet you state that "My claim was that strong earthquakes with magnitude 6 or greater have been increasing in number since 1980 and this is a very correct and true statement based upon the available data from the USGS web page" (emphasis added) when the link I provided here to USGS (direct link here) clearly, and as I noted in my post, plainly states: "...the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant." (no emphasis needed...) Norman - You have clearly not read my responses. You have clearly interpreted data in ways directly in contradiction to the sources of said data. You are clearly, flatly, incorrect. And calling the kettle black - accusing me of what you are doing. [In my extremely personal opinion] - Readers, take this for what you will: Norman, you are suffering from Confirmation bias, taking every possible web search in the fashion most aligned with your preconceptions - because you are contradicted by the sources. As such, your posts are demonstrably wrong. Until you look at data with an open mind, rather than an agenda, I will have to consider your posts a misleading distraction from the topics under discussion. Confirmation Bias is a constant issue with many 'skeptics' - whereas a real skeptic checks all the data for truth value, someone with confirmation bias will selectively see the aspects and interpretations that support their preconceptions. You are providing quite an illustrative example. [End extremely personal opinion] --- Moderators - While I dislike doing so, might I point out the repeated presentations of misleading and clearly incorrect data interpretations and references here? -
Norman at 16:33 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
fpjohn @29 I followed the links you provided to Munich Re and registered. I still do not know what they are using to develop the graph above in the OT. Is it all natural catastrophes? What is it? What I do not quite understand is that this site is dedicated to sound science. I have been rebuffed numerous times for lack of rigor in my posts or data I have put on posts. This is great it keeps the site at a higher level. Why then is the Munich Re report repeatedly used on this site like it is a sound science document. Who can explain how they generate this graph, what are they using as a "natural catastrophe". You just accept the graph yet who has knowledge of how it was derived. It is not based upon actual events which I have pointed out with KR on earthquakes. Actual strong earthquake number has been increasing since 1980 (magnitude 6+) but the Munich Re graph does not indicate an increase. Here is a link to a chart of how they define catastrophes and the various categories. Is the above chart a compilation and merging of all the categories? NatCat catergory definitions of catastrophes. If so, it shows a category 1 catastrophe as one causing some property damage and/or 1 to 9 deaths. So does that mean everytime a person is killed by a lightning strike it is counted as a catastrophe on par with an F5 Tornado, Hurricane, large flood or powerful earthquake? If this is how they are generating their graph then the large increase in storm related catastrophes could be caused by someone standing out in a lightning storm and getting killed or someone making the poor choic of driving across flowing water in a small scale flood and being killed by the poor choice of their actions. Without having a very good and detailed understanding of how this Munich Re graph was generated and what is the criteria they are using to define a catastrophic event, why is this graph used so often on this rigerous scientific web site? -
Sascha Tavere at 16:33 PM on 9 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
@ Dikran Marsupial It certainly does. Thank you, for this answer but more particularly for your posts in general. -
Norman at 15:57 PM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @ 42 I do not believe you are reading my posts before telling the community I am wrong. I can see by the data that 7 magnitude earthquakes are staying relatively constant. This is what I find interesting about your posts. Here is your claim: "I suspect they have a better view of their data than you do. You are, quite frankly, wrong." No, quite frankly I am not wrong. You are not reading my posts. My claim was that strong earthquakes with magnitude 6 or greater have been increasing in number since 1980 and this is a very correct and true statement based upon the available data from the USGS web page. "Magnitude Earthquake Effects Estimated Number Each Year 2.5 or less Usually not felt, but can be recorded by seismograph. 900,000 2.5 to 5.4 Often felt, but only causes minor damage. 30,000 5.5 to 6.0 Slight damage to buildings and other structures. 500 6.1 to 6.9 May cause a lot of damage in very populated areas. 100 7.0 to 7.9 Major earthquake. Serious damage. 20 8.0 or greater Great earthquake. Can totally destroy communities near the epicenter. One every 5 to 10 years" source. Now please look at the Munich Re chart in the OT above. You can see more than 100 geophysical events in the year 2000. There are only a few tsunamis a year or destructive volcanoes. Magnitude 7 earthquakes number around 20 a year. This would strongly suggest that some of the magnitude 6 earthquakes taking place are causing a catastrophe based on however Munich Re defines such. You can see in my linked site that 6+ magnitude quakes can cause a lot of damage in populated areas. I did graph the 6+ earthquake data and the trend is postive upward. -
dana1981 at 15:44 PM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Yes, while it's nice that Lindzen has admitted to one mistake, there are a whole lot more that he not only fails to correct or apologize for, but has been making for over 2 decades. -
WheelsOC at 15:00 PM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
It's commendable to admit it and take steps to correct the mistake. It's also unfortunate that he has a litany of long-standing mistakes that are not corrected even after being exposed repeatedly, mistakes that continually show up in his popular writings and editorials. -
Sceptical Wombat at 14:07 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I wonder if it is a mistake to have a session entirely devoted to debunking myths. Might it not be a good idea to start by having at least a quick run through the evidence for AGW and its dangers?Response: [JC] I find the debunking is usually a good opportunity to present the evidence - most myths thrive on cherry picking and the best antidote to a half-truth is the full truth. So most debunkings take the form of presenting the full picture. -
Bern at 13:32 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
Lloyd Flack @ 1: no, it wouldn't be that hard to develop a civilisation during a glacial - just not in the northern climes where modern civilisation flourished. Some other areas of the planet might have had quite agreeable climates during the glacial periods. Take this paper for example: New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis. There's a less technical take on it in this article, and plenty of other articles online too. On the other hand, this hypothesis also gives a great example of the possible consequences of global warming. Sea level rise at the end of the last glacial completely wiped out the civilisation in question, submerging their towns & villages, farmland, and hunting lands, turning their entire population into refugees (and quite possibly inspiring the legend of the biblical deluge in the process). It's a salutary warning of what might happen to significant chunks of our civilisation if the great ice sheets melt. -
Bern at 13:11 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Ah, John, you had a perfect opportunity to show The Escalator - when you were told that you couldn't bust that one, you should have said "But I've got this great graph for it, see?" and thrown it up on-screen right then. :-) In my experience, having a prepared talk is good, but answering questions from the audience is actually just as easy if you know your topic well. I had that experience when I did a few presentations while studying for my Masters degree, and have found the same in most presentations since. If you've done the homework and know the topic in some depth, this gives you an opportunity to demonstrate to the audience that there's a whole lot more information & science backing up what you've shown them. (It's also where a lot of people fall down on presentations -especially students. If you *don't* know the topic well, it shows pretty quickly at that point.) Considering how much you know about climate science, John, it should have been a cake-walk for you! :-D -
Composer99 at 13:00 PM on 9 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
I'm sure this is set to appear in a Skeptical Science post, but I thought I'd share it here (these weekly updates being the closest SkS has to an "open thread"). James Hansen does a TED talk on climate change and his advocacy work. -
Lloyd Flack at 12:06 PM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Sceptical Wombat, my impression is that it was preaching to the choir. Not that that is useless in this case. I think there were people there who had taken things on trust but wanted reasurance that their trust was justified. And possibly they wanted to be able to arge with doubters. You have to recognize that for some people seeking action on climate their reasons are similar to those of denialists. They just happen to be right by chance. A larger number, I think, reasonably trust scientists in a field that they have not had the opportunity to investigate. Those people are likely to grab opportunities that don't take up too much of their time to get a better understanding of the science. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 12:04 PM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
This post has good features as Doug says. But the paleontology paragraph provokes some quibbles: The age of dinosaurs started sometime in the Triassic. http://www.squidoo.com/dinosaur-timeline Size of cretaceous mammals - not alway so small: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/hu05.pdf "The entire body of IVPP V14155 is more than one metre in length (skull, 160 mm; trunk, 522 mm; preserved tail, 364 mm), comparable to that of a large Tasmanian devil12." toward the end of the cretaceous some other mammals were near this size - i can't recall their names and I think their lineages became extinct. When did mammals "start to evolve" if one can use that phrase? One might say with the first synapsids, well before the Age of Dinosaurs. Oxygen inthe early atmosphere: http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=1&secNum=6 came up to around 1% a few hundred k years of the start of the "great oxygen event" Was the climate suitable for human survival in the mesozoic? Sure, near the poles when the tropics were too warm. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:52 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Sceptical Wombat probably makes a good point. I was recently involved in an exchange (not climate related) in which someone was making an argument from authority. I pointed to a very simple situation that obviously proved the argument did not hold. The same person replied right back with the correct explanation for that situation, which summarized as being the exact opposite of the argument from authority made immediately before. Yet when I tried to have the person acknowledge that he had just made 2 completely opposed arguments that were incompatible, he could never get to admit it openly. Not an unusual attitude. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:34 AM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
The global climate and human evolution graphic is an excellent teaching tool. The whole post is clear, uncluttered and easy to digest. Thank you, Sarah. -
KR at 11:15 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
According to Gavin Schmidt regarding : "Note that I have received a note from Lindzen apologising for the error (and I have passed it along to the people involved in GISTEMP). - gavin" My compliments to Dr. Lindzen for this - not everyone is willing to acknowledge an error. -
gdpbull at 10:50 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
How do we know atmospheric aerosol concentrations and their influence on the global temperatures in the more distant past, say between 1880 and 1940? -
Dick Veldkamp at 10:18 AM on 9 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
#7 #8 #9 Thanks for clearing this up guys. I appreciate it. -
Lloyd Flack at 10:12 AM on 9 March 2012We've been through climate changes before
I don't think it is chance that agriculture and civilization developed in the first interglacial since the development of human language. There is indirect evidence of that occuring about 80,000 years ago. I would be hard to develop civilization during a glacial though once developed it could survive. -
KR at 10:00 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Perhaps, rather than "Has anyone changed their minds?", a better question might be "Has anyone heard something interesting and new on the topic?" Less confrontational, and opens up the possibility of discussing why those items are interesting. -
skywatcher at 09:58 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
It's interesting that one extreme weather thread which Norman has not posted a single comment is this one, discussing Hansen et al 2011. This quantifies the increase in extreme heat events around the world in a manner that is uncomplicated by improvements in observational networks of earthquakes, by the vagiaries of tornado formation which may or may not be increased by global warming (and so is a red herring), or by the body count of individual large disasters (does the Boxing Day earthquake/tsunami add 250,000 to the toll of 2000-2009?). If extremes are not on the rise, how does Norman account for the increase in extremes documented by Hansen et al (2011). As Victoria (and other parts of east Australia) is yet again hit by severe flooding, while there are still remembrances of Black Saturday, I am reminded over breakfast every morning of the enhancement of the hydrological cycle. -
Sceptical Wombat at 09:52 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
It is a mistake to put people into a corner where they have a choice of admitting that they were wrong or clinging to their old belief. Some may change their minds without admitting it that is good. Alternatively you may have been preaching to the choir. In the latter case we should hope that the choir sings a bit more loudly in future. -
Lloyd Flack at 09:50 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
I think the reason why you didn't have many people changing minds was that the audience was mostly composed of people who believed it was happening because they trusted the scientists and it was not a threat to their ideology. So they probably wanted more detail about what was happening and what they could do. I was talking to the bloke in the gray shirt in the front row. He did not seem like a denialist though I didn't get much detail on his opinions. I suspect he just didn't want to play along. I'm there in the brown shirt in the front row. I thought it was a pity that we didn't deal with the "It's not warming." myth but the encouraging thing is that it does not seem to have got anywhere near as much circulation as the others. Few in the audience had heard it, at least in the "Global warming has stopped." form. As a statistician I could have defended Foster and Ramsdorf's paper from criticism. -
KR at 09:42 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Readers - WRT Norman's issues with the Munich Re data, I believe Tom Curtis covered the issues (and objections) quite well in an earlier thread. Norman's interpretation is not supportable. -
KR at 09:23 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - The USGS, source of those numbers, states that: "We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant. A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year." (emphasis added) I suspect they have a better view of their data than you do. You are, quite frankly, wrong. "Do you see what I am saying?" - Yes, I do. You are saying that you disagree with USGS about their earthquake data, that you feel a 25% increase in tornadoes over the last 30 years is irrelevant, and that you (once again) don't agree with the notion that Munich Re has observed a notable increase in catastrophic, expensive climatic events over similar geophysical events. Which you've attempted to argue without statistics, with bad sources, and with data interpretations contradicted by the sources of those data. None of what you are saying is terribly convincing. Again. And you have not acknowledged any of these issues that various posters have pointed out, which I consider extremely poor form. Readers: I would suggest taking viewing the various Extreme Weather threads, where Norman has been (repeatedly) pointed to his errors in regards to extreme weather. ---------- Back to the thread: Glenn Tamblyn, a very evocative post. Thank you. I would love to visit your country at some point. -
Piet R. Zijlstra at 09:06 AM on 9 March 2012Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere
Tom Curtis and participants on this tread: I studied the last six months climate change and then had a holiday leave. This tread was one of the first I worked through to restart my study. And indeed a very effective one! Thanks for all your effort and time. Many thanks to the SkS-team -
yocta at 08:56 AM on 9 March 2012Interactive mythbusting in Lane Cove
Well done :) Perhaps if the audience instead had a card to fill out anonymously with something like 'yes', 'mo' 'maybe' to tick and put in a box on the way out could have helped avoid saving face IMHO -
Norman at 08:49 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @ 40 Please look at my post at 22. The USGS does list all the earthquakes of 6+ magnitude. I added the numbers and gave decade averages for earthquakes/year. If you look at the data yourself you can see clearly that the large earthquake number has increasesd in the short run (1980-2012). The USGS may be making a reference to Earthquakes from early decades, maybe from 1900 to 2012 there is no increase. That would not change the point I am making. The Munich Re Chart posted in the OT starts at 1980. The number of large (6+ magnitude earthquakes) has indeed increased in number since the 1980's from the USGS site itself (I suggest you do the math yourself, even graph the numbers on and Excel sheet and have it draw a trend line). Also the number of deaths has drastically gone up from earthquakes since the 1980's. Earthquake numbers are critical to the discussion as they are used (assumed to be relatively flat which is not the case) to prove that population growth and property values are not the reason Munich Re shows increasing catastrophes caused by Climate and weather related effects. My point is that large (prone to cause damage if near population centers and unless the greater number of quakes in the 2000 decade just all happened to occur outside the bounds of civilization as compared to 1980 decade or even the 1990 decade, but the number of deaths does not support this conclusion as they have increased at a dramatic rate). If whatever system Munich Re is using to determine a catastrophe can't pick up a noticeable increase in large earthquake number, it should be evident that this system is not valid in determining event numbers but I keep seeing the same graph used as evidence of increasing bad weather related events. If it can't match earthquake number to reality (provided by the USGS) why would I believe it is a valid portrayal of increasing bad climate or weather related phenomena. Also the strong tornado graph I linked to in Post 33 (some argue it does not show a decline in the most destructive tornados, even if not, it certainly does not show any increase yet Munich Re shows an increase in natural catastrophes from storms). Smaller tornados are not very destructive. Here "An F0 or EF0 tornado, the weakest category, damages trees, but not substantial structures. An F5 or EF5 tornado, the strongest category, rips buildings off their foundations and can deform large skyscrapers. The similar TORRO scale ranges from a T0 for extremely weak tornadoes to T11 for the most powerful known tornadoes." source. So does Munich Re consider damage to trees to be a catastrophe? Maybe the definition of the word is too loose I would think it is of considerable damage, type caused by flood, hurricane, large tornado, earthquake. Do you see what I am saying? -
KR at 08:09 AM on 9 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - You are once again using rather poor sources. The link you provided also includes the line "Speaking of the signs that will happen, leading to his return to judge the peoples of earth (at the end of the age), Jesus is quoted as saying ‘in various places there will be famines and earthquakes‘..." On the other hand, the USGS states here and here that "As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant" (emphasis added). Apocalyptic blogs on one hand - USGS on the other? I would opine that the US Geological Service has more accurate data. And that there has been no increasing trend in numbers of large earthquakes. You found a source that agree with your hypothesis - but did not quality check your source. -
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.
Prev 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 Next
