Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 Next
Comments 63201 to 63250:
-
dana1981 at 02:52 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Chris G @16, we did say in our initial response:"Monckton spent almost the entire debate misrepresenting the scientific (and economic) literature at best, lying at worst."
Because he made a number of demonstrably false claims which were either simply wrong (if he was unaware they were wrong) or lies (if he knew they were wrong). This is of course not the same as calling a liar, but merely pointing out the possibility that his false statements were lies, if the latter case were true. The same is true here - Monckton is either ignorant or lying. That's the reality of the situation, and if he chooses to take offense to that, maybe he should try expending more effort in actually getting one or two arguments correct. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:36 AM on 22 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Ken Lambert ENSO is approximately neutral when looked at on a suficiently long timescale. That does not mean it is exactly neutral over 30 years, and it definitely doesn't mean that it will be neutral over say the last decade. A combination of aersols, solar and ENSO have been shown to be able to explain the variability in climate over the last 30 years or so. This means invoking some additional ocean forcing is unnecessary and contravenes Ockams razor, and you have provided exactly zero evidence to suggest it even exists. So I repeat the challenge (in even plainer terms). Demonstrate that the observed climate over the last 30 years cannot be dequately explained by (i) a long term linear trend (ii) ENSO (iii) solar forcing and (iv) aerosol forcing. If you cannot do this, they you have no good reason to invent some mysterious ocean circulation. The ball is in your court. BTW, fact do change my opinion, but your problem is that you present no facts or even evidence to suggest the existence of the mysterious ocean circulation. -
Stephen Baines at 02:25 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Apirate. I agree wth KR. Your argument amounts to "if the language indicates fraud, it must be incorrect." You can't start evaluating the veracity of a statement by assuming a priori based on its content that it can't have been said. It's tautological. The statement "... environmental scenarios predicted for global warming are subject to the limitations of stochastic models which, as critics point out, cannot be relied upon to predict the weather a week in advance, let alone several decades in the future" is actually anti science in that it is patently wrong. First, the models are not "stochastic models" by any definition I am aware, which would typically require parameters to vary through time like random variables. They are also not designed to predict weather. Using that criterion to assess their reliability is like saying that models of natural selection are incorrect because they can't predict which birds will arrive at my feeder today. However, just as evolutionary models can predict other things perfectly well -- an average tendency to optimize resource use, the genetic relatedness of all birds -- climate models do just fine at what they are intended to do. Finally, the case for climate change simply does not rest solely on the models. Someone who states such is woefully uninformed about the matter. Ooops I see Tom has already answered! Just to emphasize, then. -
Chris G at 02:20 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
I concede the point. Though, I maybe I should have added a third alternative, both. -
Tom Curtis at 02:11 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
apirate @236, the AP workshop quote is clearly anti-science. Anybody who can write "...environmental scenarios predicted for global warming are subject to the limitations of stochastic models which, as critics point out, cannot be relied upon to predict the weather a week in advance, let alone several decades in the future" without immediately pointing out that climate models are not trying to predict weather in advance, but climate is either written by somebody with no understanding of climate science, or a clear determination to misrepresent it. Suggesting that predictions of future climate consequences are entirely reliant on stochastic models rather than, say, comparisons with climate states in past periods of exceptional warmth such as the Holocene Climactic Optimum, or the Eemian also shows a woeful lack of understanding, and is clearly going to mislead students about the state of scientific knowledge. Will you provide me with an exact reference so that a complaint to the publishers for that evil crime of deceiving children in the name of education can be corrected. -
Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
apiratelooksat50 - Perhaps you missed the conditionals in my post? "If Gleick received the "Strategy" document first, then the other documents are in fact a confirmation of it." As to the word choice question - that's just not a supportable argument. I've seen many of the tobacco industry memos, written by some of the same people currently working for/with Heartland (such as Fred Singer). Those are memos written by people who knew they were deceiving the public, and the phrasing in the tobacco memos clearly shows it. As to the veracity of the Strategy document, we'll have to see what comes to light. In the meantime, it appears that the rest of the documents - the fundraising, budget, etc. - have been confirmed as accurate. And there's plenty of information in those to be concerned with. -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:58 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Muon at 225 Before anyone anyone makes a claim that the science curriculum being developed is "anti-science", perhaps they should review that curriculum. I am sure it will be made publicy available and we can all comment to our hearts content. Until then, any commenting is pure speculation. Some speculating of my own: it seems like the curriculum will pretty much align what is currently found in textbooks and AP College Board materials. From Environmental Science by Holt, Rinehart and Winston: “However, not all scientists agree that the observed global warming is due to greenhouse gases. Some scientists believe that the warming is part of natural climatic variability. They point out that widespread fluctuations in temperature have occurred throughout geologic time.” And, from the College Board AP Environmental Science Workshop Materials: “In contrast, global warming is a much more controversial and speculative phenomenon that possibly could result from increasing atmospheric concentrations of certain radiatively active trace gases. Moreover, some of the dire environmental consequences of global warming—such as rising ocean levels, coastal flooding, ecosystem shifts, crop failures, increased severe weather, floods, and droughts—are even more uncertain and depend on the accuracy of complex computer models to predict future weather and climate. Whereas implications of the greenhouse effect can be determined directly from fundamental scientific principles, environmental scenarios predicted for global warming are subject to the limitations of stochastic models which, as critics point out, cannot be relied upon to predict the weather a week in advance, let alone several decades in the future. This is not to say that the predictions of such models are incorrect, only that one should recognize that the conclusions carry with them much more scientific uncertainty than those of global warming itself. Understanding this difference in predictability is of interest to everyone but especially important for the environmental science student.” Hardly anti-science.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] tags (hopefully) fixed -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:50 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
KR at 234 The "strategy" document clearly uses a different format and different phrasing. The word choices ("dissuading them from teaching science") are obviously not what any "denier" would use. That is a "warmist" phrase. The fact that the strategy document has identical content to the other documents is easily and logically explainable because it was written after the others. Gleick was dishonest in his actions as his confession shows. That alone casts doubts on the veracity of his claim that the "strategy" document simply showed up on his doorstep. -
jsci99 at 01:49 AM on 22 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
A 3.7W/M2 is supposed to be the total energy added by CO2 to the earth system according to numerous estimates over 150 years. An additional 3.7W/M2 would cause a 0.6C increase in temperature at the surface according to theory. We have increased co2 by 30% of what we will to double it and we should get approx 50% of all the heating we will get from a doubling of co2 concentration by this 30% increase due to the decreasing logarithmic effect of adding co2. This means we should be seeing a 1.9W/M2 imbalance not 0.5. Even if we take one guassian deviation we end up with 0.9W/M2 which is still half the theoretical additional heat from co2 alone. We are told that feedbacks will add an additional 7 or 10W/M2 to get to 2 or 3 degrees by 2100. However,at only 0.5W/M2 or even 0.9W/M2 the total heat rise from a doubling of Co2 would be less than the 0.6C expected because we seem to have an attenuating feedback that has reduced the energy imbalance from what should be 1.9W/M2 to 1/4 of that implying possibly 0.2C temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 not 2C. -
Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Ken Lambert - "Future heat gain is from future imbalance." That is a misstatement of the physics. Future heat gain is also coming from current imbalance, as the thermal inertia of the climate has not caught up to the moving target of imbalance. If GHG increases were to stop right now, we would still have decades of transient climate response, with potentially a few hundred years to equilibrium climate response - the slower feedbacks of cryosphere and vegetation. Yes, if the TOA imbalance were suddenly and miraculously zeroed (with leprechauns?), then warming would end. If you have some method of doing that, please, let everyone know! -
Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Most curious. If Gleick received the "Strategy" document first, then the other documents are in fact a confirmation of it. Many have noted the identical content between the documents - but Gleick simply didn't have the board meeting notes available to him when he received the Strategy writeup. This makes me wonder if the person who sent the Strategy doc to Gleick is indeed on the board. -
Ken Lambert at 01:31 AM on 22 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
DM, Barry, scaddenp If the facts change - so do my opinions - what do you do sir? (J M Keynes I think) DM ENSO is supposed to be neutral by current opinion (eg. Trenberth) - an internal heat redistribution cycle - not an external forcing. Solar is supposed to be small +/-0.13W/sq.m on the 11 year cycle. Not a big player in a reported 0.9W/sq.m imbalance. Aerosols are a big unknown. Hansen thinks they are a much bigger cooling forcing than Trenberth. All of the above could be wrong - but we are talking liklihoods with current state of scientific knowledge. ENSO could be an external forcing running on a longer cycle (a mysterious ocean cycle) - I have suspected that its ability to exchange heat with space is not entirely symmetrical which would be the case if it were neutral. Interestingly Barry #62 seems to suggest this. However you can't pin ENSO for the recent (up to 14 year)stasis in surface temperatures where there are several cycles of La Nina and El Nino in that period - unless there is a longer cycle of asymmetry of heat loss verses heat gain involved - ie. it becomes an external forcing. -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:28 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Muon at 225 What are referring to by this statement? "Who are the real deceivers here? Gleick? or those sponsoring fake research and preparing an anti-science curriculum for high schools?" Do you have an example of the anti-science curriculum, or are you going off the faked document? And, are you supporting Gleick, or suitably disappointed? -
CBDunkerson at 01:15 AM on 22 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
Ken, your 'correct' understanding would seem to require that ice not melt when subjected to temperatures above freezing, but only when subjected to continually increasing temperatures. As that isn't how ice actually behaves I must question your assertion that this is "correct". -
Ken Lambert at 01:09 AM on 22 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
KR #62 Not semantic gaming KR - correct understanding of the relationship between energy (heat) gain and temperature rise. Future heat gain is from future imbalance. If the imbalance zeroed tomorrow the energy absorbed to then would appear in the system somewhere. Global temperature rise would also stop tomorrow. Regional and media temperatures may rise as heat is redistributed through the system, but this will be matched by falls elsewhere. -
CBDunkerson at 01:03 AM on 22 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
The WSJ has now published a 'skeptic' response to the climate scientist letter. Shockingly (ok, no I'm not really shocked), it contains many of the same incorrect arguments as their original op ed, plus some 'new' ones. Can a SkS debunking be far behind?Moderator Response: [JH] Depends on your definition of "far behind." -
CBDunkerson at 00:39 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Anthony Watts an IPCC expert reviewer? Of what? The chapter on carbon dioxide snow? Oi! Dikran, thanks for the explanation. -
GreenCooling at 23:53 PM on 21 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Fascinating developments indeed. It is important to note this is getting nasty. Heartland's Joe Bast is keeping busy hassling many online publishers, including harassment of a 71 year old veteran activities, it is interesting to see at that Col. Gary Wamsley is also being harassed by one “Dave Burton” who is passing himself off as “IPCC AR5 WG1 FOD (First Order Draft) Expert Reviewer” and “Member, NC Sea Level Rise Impact Study Advisory Committee”. This from a guy who has one self published paper sea level rise and a long post promoting climategate on his site, and with 41 hits so far for cut and paste comments appears to be a ‘paid by the post’ blogger for Heartland. Anthony Watts of WUWT has also claimed to have been accepted as an Expert Reviewer on AR5 WG1 FOD. One is left to wonder how many other climate science denier Heartland supporters have been similarly admitted by the IPCC, and to hope the IPCC displays the same courage as Peter Gleick in blowing the whistle on these folks. -
skept.fr at 21:43 PM on 21 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
33 Rob : thank you! 26 neil and after As I understand it, Loeb et al 2012 estimate a change in heat content, that can also be described as an energy imbalance. Their words (my bold) : We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0,50±0,43 Wm2 Combining the stable, decadal-length record of changes in net radiation from CERES with the 0-1,800 m Argo OHCA record and other minor storage terms, we compute Earth's energy imbalance for the period from January 2001-December 2010 to be 0,50±0,43 Wm2 This quantity is basically the amount of energy received from space (Sun) that have not been reemitted to space (outgoing thermal radiation), and that have in consequence heated the system (mainly the ocean) or melt the ice. I would say this is equivalent to the integral of all forcings (natural+anthropogenic) on the period plus an hypothetic short term variability in cloud cover (for example, if for any reason there is more/less cloud-cover at the end of the period compared to the beginning, this would create the equivalent of a forcing in the short period analyzed, because more/less entering short wave is reflected to space). The "pipe-line" means in my mind that as far as forcing have not changed substantially, the process continue permanently (and the more we add radiative agents in the atmosphere, the higher the imbalance). It may also means that part of the heat content accumulated in the ocean 2001-2010 will be transferred to the surface, either in a fast (year-to-decade) warming rate for surface layers (ENSO-like variability) either in a slow warming rate for the deeper layers of the system (century-scaled THC). Is it the way you understand these data? -
Tom Curtis at 20:34 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Chris G @16: I present as exhibit A the following sequence of events: On June 22nd, 2011 Monckton said of Ross Garnaut's opinions:
"...that again is a fascist point of view that you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go."
Later he apologized saying:"Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as 'fascist'. I apologise humbly."
But later still he qualified that apology by saying:" I apologised because even the slightest suggestion that one of his opinions was a fascist opinion is, these days, regarded as intolerable in circles other than the particular circle to which I addressed it. And it shouldn't have gone out from there, but somehow it did. And of course, in those circumstances the only thing to do..."
Now this is very simple. The difference between what Monckton purported to do in the first instance, and what he later claims he did is this: In the first instance, he appears to apologize for his saying things that were offensive. His later qualification makes it plain that he is apologizing for it becoming known that he made offensive remarks. On the very best interpretation, he is apologizing for the offense but not the offensiveness of the remarks, ie, he is apologizing that his remarks caused offense because they became known, but not apologizing for the remarks being offensive, for as he claims, whether or not they are offensive is purely a matter of convention, differing among different groups. Assume, for the moment, the best interpretation. In that case the claim to apologize "unreservedly" is a bald faced lie. If you qualify unreservedly, you qualify without reservation, and the claim that his remarks are not offensive per se, but only offensive by perception among some groups is certainly a reservation. So large a reservation as, IMO, to make the apology meaningless. What is more, Monckton is not entitled to this generous interpretation of his remarks. If you are sorry for something, you try not to do it again, but shortly after his damning admission of the reservations in his "unreserved apology" he said on a public platform:"What we have here is naked, left-wing, political interference in the right of somebody who is invited to your country to speak freely at various venues all round the country. Now when you get that sort of behaviour, let us remember where that sort of behaviour last happened. It happened in the 1930s in Central and Western Europe in a country called Germany. That kind of breaking up of meetings, silencing of opponents, for prevention of free speech, that is a hallmark of -- and I am proud to use the word loud and clear -- fascism! And that is what your ABC now represents."
So, far from being regretful of suggesting somebody was a fascist, he now identifies an entire organization as a fascist organization. And if he had no regrets about calling people fascists, then he cannot have sincerely apologized for it. At most, to the extent that his apology was genuine, it was an expression of regret over the inconvenience of being found out. And just so that we are fully aware of the true moral depths of this loathsome man, having riled the crowd up against the ABC, and having specifically mentioned by name an ABC reporter who he knew to be in the crowd, saying that she had asked "... deliberately offensive questions", with the consequence that that ABC reporter was jostled and jeered by the crowd, and possibly would have had worse if not for a few honourable people. -
skywatcher at 19:40 PM on 21 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
#21 ... and your source (presumably written by you) contains no actual calculations of the gravitational forces involved, nor a physical explanation of how the tiny and incredibly gradual changes in force are supposed to materially affect a living creature, let alone how these incredibly gradual changes in the distribution of Earth's gravity would cause a rapid extinction event. Therefore I relegate it to pure crackpottery, and will stick with better explanations for extinction events that rely on actual geological and palaeontological evidence, thanks. -
chriskoz at 18:55 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Chris G @16, Monckton is far from "self-deluding" and "can be explained by incompetence" type of person. The other characterisation of your: "evil and skilled liar", does fit him much better. Because Monckton's been reminded many times about his mistakes (sometimes very gross and childish as Tom has shown us here) but he never publicly admitted them nor apologised for them. He continues to attack everyone who disagrees with him and even threaten others with court actions. About the phenomenon of some crowds (i.e. WUWT) who follow and cherish him: this is really not that strange. We had even stranger cases in history, when the entire nations have been following charismatic speakers, regardless of their objective credibility and their morale. I think Monckton likes such modus operandi, because he did even sees his opponents as such, e.g.: here. But in the case of prof Garnaut, he made an exception to his rules and apologized later on. -
les at 18:43 PM on 21 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
229 - Charlie A How doesI can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication
leave the impression that he wrote anything that "have been made public"? -
Charlie A at 18:34 PM on 21 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
The headpost by Dana1981 ends with " *SkS note: Heartland could easily prove the strategy document is a fake by releasing the email which they claim contained the released documents." Peter Gleick has stated that the strategy document was not part of the e-mail package from Heartland. Perhaps that note should be updated to " *SkS note: Heartland could easily prove the strategy document is a fake by proving that they did not mail or slip under Gleick's door the strategy memo". It should be noted that, for several days now, there has been speculation based upon writing style that Gleick is the author of the stategy memo. This speculation preceded the admission by Gleick that he obtained the other documents under false pretenses. It should be noted that Peter Gleick did not explicitly say that he did not write the strategy memo, although his carefully worded admission leaves that impression. -
gpwayne at 17:56 PM on 21 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
"Should the SkS Comment Policy be amended to explicitly prohibit the hi-jacking of a comment thread by an individual commenator?" I don't think any policy change is required. I've missed the context in which this question came up, but I regard it as a plea for formalisation, for bureaucratic rules. Perhaps this question is asked in response to those who complain about their posts being moderated, but this is not a problem that can be addressed by 'fairness' any more than it can be addressed by formalisation. The trolls, contrarians and others whose actions appear deliberate and disruptive promote, as a central philosophy, the idea that they are victims - of science, of the left, of anyone whose world view does not conform to their ideology - hence the propaganda war forced on us by a variety of people in denial. No scientist wanted this war, but now we're in it, I don't think any 'policy' can address the symptoms of this pernicious disease. They will not go away, and nor will their complaints - in fact, the more successful SkS becomes, the more vitriolic and abusive will be the criticism. I believe the only way forward is to remain flexible, eschewing the need for more explicit prohibition through policy as I find SkS already does a good and conscientious job. As others have commented, sometimes the diversion is worthy, and sometimes not. Without applying 'one size fits all' rules that merely restrict the adaptability of the forum, I think that SkS should continue to treat each case on its own merits, treating each post individually without dogma or favouritism. -
owl905 at 17:37 PM on 21 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
@Staten-John 21 - read it and rejected it. It's not a general explanation; it's a KTX proposition. It's a late-arrival crypto-extinction study that respects neither the geological movements of the Upper Cretaceous nor the elephant already in the room called the Chixulub Impact. -
owl905 at 17:28 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
With Tom on that one. The pigeon-hole DK reference holds up; but the 'great' pro-pollutionists like Skinner, Idso, and Moncton, first and foremost believe in themselves. Truth v lies is malleable and adjustable - the priority trumps the value of bland truth. Skinner's UHI/Unstoppables; Idso's Petition/Fertilizer; Moncton's Presentation, Lomborg's Cost/Benefits ... every debate and word-joust has the road sign "Caution, Slippery Ahead". If you're looking for ones who actually believe in their case - turn right at the corner of McIntyre & McKitrick; head down Barton Street to where it turns into Inhoffe Blvd; and head straight to Christie&Spencer Circle. It's just past Lintzen's Curiosity Shop. If it's a contest for artificial supports - how about Moncton's need to be a Lord, versus Lintzen's need for the "of MIT" title? -
Chris G at 17:21 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Aye Stephen, that's what I was alluding to. Address the audience, Monckton will never admit defeat. Hah, can we call him the Black Knight? He is a Lord after all. I suppose that leaves someone here as galloping around with coconuts. -
Rob Painting at 17:20 PM on 21 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Neil - As I stated earlier, I can't locate a full copy of the Matthews & Weaver paper, so have to rely on commentary at Real Climate. The imaginary scenario proposed by the authors is utterly pointless in my opinion. Greenhouse gas emissions will not drop to zero, and one has to include the effects of aerosols dropping out of the atmosphere if one wants to realize committed climate. Aerosols will drop out of the atmosphere within weeks in such a scenario leading to abrupt warming, whereas draw-down will take some time - assuming the terrestrial carbon sinks behave as anticipated. "Please note, my outlines above are not some wacky opinion that I've concocted. They are the results of performing these experiments with state-of-the-art earth system models, as you will find in the literature I referred to. Actually there have been a few peer-reviewed papers surfacing lately about the summer Arctic sea ice loss not being irreversible - if the Earth undergoes sufficient cooling. That seems an extraordinarily unlikely scenario too. Obviously someone considered it was worthwhile wasting supercomputer time. -
Staten-John at 17:19 PM on 21 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
@JP40,scaddenp The theory that you dismiss will eventually be accepted. If you read the PDF and have basic knowledge about physics, geology and paleontology, you will understand why. Do you also believe that one of the references cited: 'Plate tectonic may control geomagnetic reversal frequency' is also "silly?" This reference provides strong support for the GTME, i.e., it supports the linkage between the movement of continental plates and the Earth's core. BTW, your understanding of the theory is faulty based on the comments you made. I would suggest you study angular momentum, particularly the conservation of angular momentum. -
barry at 17:14 PM on 21 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Minor quibble:"Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature"
In the context of the (intro) paragraph, that sentence refers to variance. Also, the same language ('dominant influence') is reflected in the first paragraph of the conclusions, which again is about variance. There are less ambiguous quotes connecting ENSO to long-term trends just prior to and within the conclusions of the paper."The strength of the time lagged relationship between ENSO and GTTA, as demonstrated here, suggests that variation in the poorly modeled ENSO may account for the deficit and may be the cause of a large part of the observed warming since the midtwentieth century."
and"Finally, this study has shown that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability and perhaps recent trends in global temperature,..."
http://www.auscsc.org.au/images/PDF/influenceofenso.pdf -
Chris G at 17:08 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Dana, Oh, I think I see. I read Monckton's reply at WUWT, where he claimed you (although he seems to be confused as to your name) had called him a liar. I gave it a half-hearted look to see where you had said that, failed to find it, and simply guessed that you had gotten fed up and short of temper at some point. It appears that Monckton misrepresents again; you said he was mistaken, he claimed you had called him a liar. Have to admit it was a bit disheartening to see the crowd congratulating Monckton on his defeat of Cook when it wasn't even John he was engaged with. If that represents the average person, it doesn't bode well. Tom, yeah, I know. But, a lot of people believe what he tells them, and that means he is an either extremely evil and skilled liar, or he is self-deluding. What's the saying, something about not attributing to evil what can be explained by incompetence, but don't rule out evil. -
Stephen Baines at 17:02 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
If I were to guess, it would be that 1) he believes the conspiracy stuff, 2) he also believes in his ideological correctness and 3) he believes in himself (i.e., he's arrogant). In him "the ends justify the means" and "D-K effect" bleed together to some degree. He may actually believe that his reinterpretations of the science are more correct. That doesn't excuse him though. It's still negligent. In any case, it all makes impossible to have a real substantive conversation with the man about much of anything. Any attempt to engage him really comes down to an attempt to address his audience. -
Tom Curtis at 16:45 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Chris G @12 and dana1981 @13, while it may be true for some of his claims, in general I disagree. -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:44 PM on 21 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Copie @ 172, a couple of comments:One does not have to be a scientist to be able to observe weather or climate.
So, without doing any science - like keeping accurate records of weather over a long time and a large fraction of the globe - how exactly does one observe global climate?As anyone who makes their living from nature can tell you, weather and climate constantly changes, sometimes for the better and sometimes not.
As anyone who has studied the phenomena closely can tell you, changes in climate happen for a reason. It is not some arbitrary weather god rolling the dice to come up with the Next Climate Trend: it is observable, measurable influences called forcings that invoke such changes.And as for all this stupid stuff about co2 being our ruination! As any student can tell you, co2 is one of lifes essentials, as important as oxygen. Generally, the more the better.
A quick Google search turned up this information:"On the average, there is about 10-20 mg. of arsenic in the human body"
The human body has evolved to accommodate this level of asenic. Would you also say of it "Generally,the more the better"? Trace gasses in the atmosphere can be as powerful as trace elements in the human body, with severe adverse effects resulting from upsetting the 'natural' balance. What are you attacking here: the science, or the threat to your comfortable lifestyle? I'm guessing it is not the science, because you are happy to accept the word of "any student" and scientists start out being students (in fact, they never stop studying until they retire, I guess). -
dana1981 at 16:41 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
I think Monckton almost certainly believes what he's saying. Most denialists do. It's more of a Dunning-Kruger problem than a dishonesty problem, except to the extent that denial causes a person to be dishonest with himself. -
Chris G at 16:05 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
It struck me that it is possible that Monckton actually believes what he is saying. I suspect that stretches credulity for many here, but keep it in mind. It might make for more effective tactics. -
RyanStarr at 15:57 PM on 21 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
@muoncounter, Gleick's deception produced that "anti-science curriculum" you use to legitimize his deception. The dog is chasing it's own tail. -
Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
neil - Please note that your scenarios assume that CO2 emissions cease. Do you actually expect that to happen? An interesting Gedankenexperiment - but really, not realistic. Given the ~40-50% of emissions absorbed by the oceans per year (~2+ppm), there would be a half-life of ~40 years on the over equilibrium CO2 for just the simplest absorption case. If you look at current literature (such as Archer et al 2009), which show that CO2 drawdown is a combination of several processes, some with geological extent, it's actually tens of thousands of years for the last 25-30% of CO2 to be absorbed. During which time the "warming in the pipeline" will occur. You present a rather rosy view. I think the science, the literature, do not support that. -
Tom Curtis at 15:24 PM on 21 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Muoncounter @109, while I agree that we have "made the MWP vanish" in terms of relative forcings, that is not germane to the issue of the total forcings in the MWP. Of those forcings, the three main components are the solar forcing, the volcanic forcing and the GHG forcing. Despite first glance appearances in the figure you reproduce, GHG forcings are significant relative to other forcings in the MWP as a comparison of the scales of the y-axis will show. It should be noted that just prior to 1000 AD, GHG forcings fall to approximately LIA levels again, although that is not shown by Crowely 2000. My purpose in quoting Swingedouw et al 2010 was to rebut Camburn's contention that Crowley was so obsolete that it can be ignored. That a 2010 study uses Crowley's figures for solar forcing just emphasizes that point. For course Swingedouw et al use Amman et al 2007 for volcanic forcings, but the pattern is still very similar, although with less volcanism in the MWP. I have to admit I am puzzled as to your reason for pointing out that Crowley's reconstruction of TSI depends on isotope data. Prior to 1600 and reliable sunspot counts, what else could it be based on? -
DSL at 15:15 PM on 21 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
What a mess. The spin-o-rama drama dances out of control. Meanwhile, off in a quiet corner, the planet just keeps on warming. Revkin sells. That's what he's good for. The whole climate scene is just a mass of exchange value for him. He'll milk it until the false dichotomy becomes obvious to even the most unobservant, and then he'll move on to milk some other alleged debate. -
neil at 15:00 PM on 21 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
PS: Please note, my outlines above are not some wacky opinion that I've concocted. They are the results of performing these experiments with state-of-the-art earth system models, as you will find in the literature I referred to. -
jeffgreen11 at 14:57 PM on 21 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html It appears Peter Gleick is at the center of the documents ocming out. I feel bad that it turned out this way. Heartland has guaranteed they will be agressive about whoever is at the center of this. It will be interesting to see how the story turns out. -
neil at 14:57 PM on 21 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
@Rob Painting The article is available at the link I provided above, with the title: Committed climate warming. The article discusses exactly the point I made (Quote below). There is great value to this thought experiment. If there is a large committed warming from past emissions, it implies future warming is inevitable. However, for GHG forcing, this is not the case. (Lets leave aerosols aside for now and just think about carbon, there might be a case to made for aerosols). With due respect, I understand the concept and implications of TOA imbalance. Here is the point: 1) stop emissions [so as to consider an ideal case of 'committed warming from past emissions']. 2) CO2 is sucked up by the ocean, reducing the TOA imbalance over time. In the meantime any remaining TOA imbalance causes warming. However the ocean is absorbing, not releasing heat. The amount of heat uptake by the deep ocean almost exactly balances the warming due to the remaining (but disappearing) TOA imbalance. Thus the surface does not warm any further; rather surface temperatures remain constant for hunders to thousands of years. As I said before, of course as long as there is a TOA imbalance the climate system as a whole will warm, but this occurs in the deep ocean, not at the surface. Please recognize that this is a key concept behind why the "cumulative carbon emissions" methodologies work. If you can, I encourage you to read the peer-review papers which discuss these concepts at some length. Damon Mathews is an author of several. In addition to the "committed warming" paper, see also the 2009 Nature paper "The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions" Quote from Mathews and Weaver (2010) " We argue that the notion of unavoidable warming owing to inertia in the climate system is based on an incorrect interpretation of climate science. Stable atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would lead to continued warming, but if carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely, temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time. " -
muoncounter at 14:49 PM on 21 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
How Revkin overreacts: Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. ... That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family). Who are the real deceivers here? Gleick? or those sponsoring fake research and preparing an anti-science curriculum for high schools? -
Charlie A at 14:12 PM on 21 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Peter Gleik has admitted that he obtained some of the documents fraudulently from Heartland. He claims that the other document, apparently the one that Heartland has identified as being fake landed on his doorstep in the mail. People on other blogs, several days agonoted simalarities between the writing style of the strategy document and posts and comments by Peter Gleik. He appears to deny this on his vauguely worded admission. See DotEarth: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/ -
IanC at 14:11 PM on 21 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Rosco, The rotational rate is actually very import. It is only when the rotational rate is sufficiently fast that it is sensible to divide the solar radiation by 4 to get the average solar radiation. In the case of the moon, the day side has a temperature of 390K, which is indeed a lot higher then the black body temperature you'll get by averaging the solar radiation. This should not be surprising: since the lunar day is actually 30 days long, of course you can't assume that the incoming solar radiation of 1368W/m2 is evenly distributed on the surface, and proceed to use 301W/m^2 to calculate the equivalent temperature. The fact that the model doesn't give you the right temperature doesn't mean that the physics behind the model (i.e. the theory) is wrong, but rather it means you are applying it incorrectly because some simplifying assumptions doesn't hold. For earth the rotation is sufficiently fast that it is sensible, as a simple model, to assume the incoming solar radiation is evenly distributed on the surface. The fact that the earth never approach 87 degrees is because the earth is rotating relatively fast, and therefore no point on the surface will be exposed to 1368W/m^2 long enough for the temperature to rise to that level. Again, the discrepancy is because you are applying the model incorrectly, not because the physics is wrong. -
scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 21 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Copie - and what about those that died in heatwaves? What bit about "Global" is so hard to understand? Would the term Anthropogenic Climate Change help you understand what is going on? If you are here to beat a drum without being interested in understanding what is happening in the world, then there is no point in further discussion. Otherwise, you could try seeing what the science actually says. -
Alex C at 13:54 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
As unfortunate it is to hear that Peter was the "Heartland Insider," that topic is not pertinent to this thread, and it might not be helpful predicting - and perhaps thus precipitating - a contrarian "flood" where the discussion is not relevant. -
Brian Purdue at 13:53 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
When you read in-depth posts like this and watch the many videos exposing Monckton’s gross misinformation, it also puts the spotlight on the blog site WUWT and the Alex Jones Show because they eagerly host Monckton as a climate commentator. They repeatedly give him a public megaphone to trumpet his bunkum. May they continue to do so because it’s then easy for the rationalising public to see just how hollow the whole climate “skeptic” argument really is. I look forward to reading the other posts in this series.
Prev 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 Next
