Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 Next
Comments 63451 to 63500:
-
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. -
muoncounter at 13:50 PM on 21 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Copie, You are apparently unaware that carbon emissions from many eastern European countries have already declined significantly. But never fear, summer will soon be here and that should prove to you that global warming is real. -
DSL at 13:49 PM on 21 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Yes, Copie, it's true that it is difficult to convince some who walk out their doors and find the weather very cold. Some wouldn't even be convinced by people who live far north of them, such as people in Svalbard. While eastern Europe was in the grip of intense cold, those people were walking out their doors to find rain and temperatures 5-7C above normal for weeks. We can compare local stories all day long, but this is a poor substitute for gathering data from thermometers and satellites. You point out one of the big hurdles in the way of getting something done about the problem. Most people don't have the time, energy, training, means, and/or motivation to look at the science. Instead, they rely on their experience and maybe the local weatherman. I talk with young, well-educated people from all over the globe on a daily basis about the climate situation, and few of them understand the basics of the theory, let alone all of the mechanisms of change that will operate on a rapidly warming planet. -
owl905 at 13:43 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Set phasers on obliterate. -
owl905 at 13:32 PM on 21 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
Hijacking is for loosers.
-
Copie at 13:20 PM on 21 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
You will struggle to convince the families of the 600 odd people in Easter Europe who have died over the past few weeks from extreme cold that this is just another sign of global warming! Try explaining to them that you are scientists who reccomend that they stop using their gas heaters or wood burning fires. -
Gringo at 13:18 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Gleick admits he is Heartland Insider, claims he did not fake memo http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html Shields up! I predict a flood of deniers here any time now. -
owl905 at 13:18 PM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
A huge cheer to the work done on this topic. Using a Douglass paper in support of the sensitivity issue ... smooth ... and very cold. The radar went off over the Met Office confirmation quote. A comment section on the CBC website (Canada); an article about serious concerns in the science community over government muzzling; that exact phrase was in a comment without source. Maybe it was ripped off the JoNova slogsite in early February. Or it's another Goebbels wannabe. One of the best SKS originals. All thumbs go up. -
owl905 at 12:53 PM on 21 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
Glenn Tamblyn 15 wrote: "there is a basic premise in your thinking that may not be obvious. That our societies will always be able to respond to these threats even though the threats are fundamentally likely to undermine the capacity of our societies." There's no such underlying premise. There's probably multiple stages of triage for the Hot Planet. The comment was about exit and the place line. Quite the opposite, it's your Malthusian 'No Blade of Grass' hyberbole chalked with examples that have proven to be hollow. There's less famine now, less violence now, higher standards of living with a population explosion, and the pulse of famine has slowed to a stop in China. It's scare-mongering when the outcomes are diametrically opposed to the forecast. And the big reason for that is technology; hint- read the 1972 Club of Rome report. - they also missed the technology factor. -
Rosco at 12:47 PM on 21 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Observation shows the "effective" temperature of the Earth in response to the solar radiation is ~255 K or minus 18 degrees C. Observation also shows that this temperature exists about 5 km above the Earth's surface and does not reflect in any shape or form the "surface temperature". No matter what arguments one can enter into a theory has to be able to explain indisputable observed facts and there is at least one that no-one can argue with - the surface heating on the Moon by the solar radiation alone and the fact that the Earth is much cooler. -
Bernard J. at 12:44 PM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
I can't help but think that 'Elsa' is simply a troll. The name might be sweetly female, but the contrast between (feigned?) ignorance and a preparedness to delve into non-basic science is ringing alarm bells. I suspect that engaging her would be akin to engaging a mini-Monckton, or indeed a tar baby. -
Rosco at 12:39 PM on 21 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Sorry - accidently double posted when I added a sentence - delete first one if you like. -
Rosco at 12:35 PM on 21 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
No matter what models are used there is a simple fact that shows one "Inconvenient Truth" that needs to be dealt with in order to justify any sort of radiation trap. There are two planets orbiting the Sun. Both are subject to similar solar radiation. The Moon's surface temperature reaches ~ 396 K during the lunar day. This temperature agrees with theoretical calculations using 0.12 albedo and ~1368 W/sq m solar radiation. The long lunar day has nothing to do with it - the temperature is reached rapidly and cannot increase above the "blackbody" temperature no matter how long it is illuminated. The Earth's surface, according to the IPCC, receives ~51% of the Solar constant during the day. This amount of solar energy equates to a "blackbody" temperature of 331 K or ~ 58 degrees C and this is about the highest temperature recorded on Earth. Of course there is the ~20 % absorbed by the atmosphere which also causes heating. This demonstrates that the atmosphere actually reduces the surface temperature - if it was being radiatively heated by "greenhouse gases" it would be much hotter. The Moon's daytime temperature proves it is not correct to use a quarter of the insolation to assert that there is insufficient solar energy to explain Earth's temperatures. If you apply this to the Moon you get a result using - 1368 / 4 (1 - 0.12) = ~301W/sq m. 301 W/sq m gives - via Stefan-Boltzmann - ~270 K. So which is right ? 270 K calculated by one quarter of the solar radiation or 396 K which is observed and confirmed even by NASA ? You cannot simply dismiss this - the only difference between the 2 relevant to a discussion on radiative heating is the atmosphere and oceans. The Earth never approaches its "blackbody" temperature which is ~87 degrees C for an albedo of 30 %. The atmosphere clearly reduces the heating effect of the solar radiation. -
Riccardo at 11:42 AM on 21 February 2012The sun is getting hotter
True, even a few tenth of a degree would buy us some time. Undeserved but welcome. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:19 AM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Monckton has no credibility whatsoever. The first time I saw a video of him, the gross errors in the first seconds of it had me wonder why people weren't getting up and leaving. It is beyond me why anyone would even pay attention to his ramblings. It is a strange world indeed where such buffoonery as his speeches can gather traction. It reveals how badly some want to believe a certain way. -
scaddenp at 10:56 AM on 21 February 2012The sun is getting hotter
That would be undeserved but welcome break for mankind. Let's hope we can make the most of it before the sun returns to normal activity. -
scaddenp at 10:52 AM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
"we cannot tell if the warming that has happened since 1970 is because of CO2 or reductions in aerosols or something else altogether. Wrong again. In this is the realm of attribution studies. Beyond those discussed in AR4 (have you even read this?), you might like to look at Benestad and Schmidt 2009. So much for "complete lack of mathematical technique". The models dont differ their view of climate but differ heavily in how to compute the physics. What "widely different assumptions" are you claiming that models make? Oh, and further to the idea that other factors were added to the theory to make it work, perhaps you should look at the Broecker 1975 which is based on one of the earlier climate models and the first that I know of that made quantifiable predictions to test. It's opening line shows nothing added to make it work. -
otter17 at 10:40 AM on 21 February 2012Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
Quite well done Dr. Kutscher! You do well by focusing far more on the correct information, rather than the long-debunked arguments. My only suggestion would be to put a visible disclaimer on the skeptic argument slides indicating that the information presented has evidence that discredits it. Something like this (in red font?): ** This statement has been shown to be false by at least three lines of evidence. I think having such a statement would do well, but maybe avoid just a simple label of "false" or "red herring". I noticed that climate contrarian blog readers seemed to latch onto the "Climate Reality" project's use of "red herring" in a negative way. If you haven't checked out the Debunking Handbook, that is where I got my suggestion from. Also a well done piece of work, with great references. http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf -
Emilio at 10:38 AM on 21 February 2012The sun is getting hotter
The maximum of solar cycle 24 is proving to be a fiasco. The cycle 25 can't even occur. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/123844859.html -
elsa at 10:36 AM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Chris the reason why I think your numbered (i) to (vi) approach is wrong in the case of AGW is that there is far more than one variable involved. we cannot tell if the warming that has happened since 1970 is because of CO2 or reductions in aerosols or something else altogether. Quite apart from the complete lack of any mathematical technique that would enable us to do such a thing if we could do it there would not be models there would only be one model. The fact that the models have widely differing assumptions but can each claim to be able to explain temperature changes ought to be a huge source of concern for the AGW "scientists" not a source of strength. -
Dikran Marsupial at 10:34 AM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Elsa, just what observations do you think AGW theory is based on. Note that the core of the theory was fully fleshed out by Gilbert Plass in the 1950s. Please tell me which observations he used that are non-repeatable. "But if you have a theory of warming that is consistent with both warming and cooling how are we to test it? " Sorry again you are demonstrating ignorance of the theory and of the models used to test the theory. If we have data or projections for the other forcings, then we can use the theory to determine/project the plausible range of the response to the combined forcings. If the observations lie outside that range then the theory is falsified. It really isn't rocket science. -
elsa at 10:28 AM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Dikran, I would agree that it would be possible to set up experiments that were repeatable to demonstrate a link between CO2 and warming. But I don't agree that the observations on which AGW theory are based are repeatable and could be run over and over again. We cannot fix the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at will to test its relationship with temperature still less the other factors that we don't even know about. You state that my view is "based on your ignorance of what the theory actually predicts and of the historical development of the theory. CO2 radiative forcing is only one of the forcings that govern long term climate, as it says, for instance in the IPCC WG1 report. Does AGW theory say that temperatures cannot fall while CO2 levels rise? No, it doesn't." This view you reiterate at 69. But if you have a theory of warming that is consistent with both warming and cooling how are we to test it? What circumstances would show it was wrong? You say AGW theory is falsifiable, but it seems any situation can be brought withn the predictions that it makes. -
scaddenp at 10:24 AM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
"With the addition of other factors into the AGW theory there is no new more general theory developed, simply an additional factor to explain away facts that are inconsistent with the standard AGW theory. But by introducing such factors we render the theory untestable. " Yet again, this is completely untrue, as a Discovery of global warming. Likewise, predictions are all testable. Repeating wrong assertions does not make them true. How are we supposed to discuss this when you persist in repeating what is demonstrably false? -
Stephen Baines at 10:22 AM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Sorry...noticed that Tom and Alex contributed after posting. Kudos for them too! As for self-consistency among 'skeptics', you're right of course. But often you hear inconsistent arguments from different quarters. That makes it harder to get traction with the consistency argument. Here, however, we see it in one man because he is trying to embody the cause. It speaks to his personal credibility that he can't even bother to worry about consistency. His disdain for it, along with his causual treatment of the facts, his misrepresentations of the scientists and papers he cites and his inability to ever admit error are all reasons I just won't pay him heed again. -
Dikran Marsupial at 10:09 AM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Elsa, as has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY, the 40s-70s cool period is completely consistent with AGW theory, and pretty much always has been. Note that in the early 70s there was some discussion about whether sulphate aerosols would counteract CO2 radiative forcing to such a degree that we would get a mini ice age (note if you want to discuss the associated skeptic argument, please do so on the appropriate thread). This was before we had GCMs. Now, what is your evidence that AGW theory has been modified to explain the 40s-70s cool period? Point to a paper where this modification was published. Can I suggest that we ignore Elsa until this information is provided? -
Stephen Baines at 10:02 AM on 21 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
The cartoon is hilariously bang on! Thanks for that... Doug...it would be really interesting to try to do that cartoon from a woman's or a non-caucasian's perspective. I should run it past my grad student... -
elsa at 10:00 AM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Sorry the above post seems to contain a repeat of Sphaerica's comment. -
dana1981 at 10:00 AM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Thanks Stephen - Alex and Tom also made substantial contributions to these 3 posts. In one of the remaining two, we'll also see Monckton making the 'MWP was hotter than present' argument, which also contradicts his 'sensitivity is low' position. 'Skeptics' aren't exactly known for their self-consistency, as we all know. -
elsa at 09:59 AM on 21 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Sphaerica If I understand you correctly what you say is that the theory of relativity was invented to rescue classical mechanics in the same way that other factors are brought in to explain falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2 levels. I would not agree with the comparison. Relativity left the previous theory as a special case of a more general theory. With the addition of other factors into the AGW theory there is no new more general theory developed, simply an additional factor to explain away facts that are inconsistent with the standard AGW theory. But by introducing such factors we render the theory untestable. What we have done when the theory "failed" was to decide that it must in fact be right, it just omitted one of the other variables that we should have included. Now it may well be a correct view, but it is not one that we can really test in a scientific way. As James Lovelock put it "The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet." Sort of like having a theory of classical mechanics, except the speed of light doesn't fit, so someone devises some crazy Theory of Relativity just to make the obviously flawed, broken and useless model of classical mechanics fit the observations (rather than doing the smart thing, and just plain starting over)? And then other people develop more ideas, like quarks and string theory and everything else? You're right, it's all completely crazy. Why keep expanding on what you know and further refining your understanding of a complex system, when you can instead oversimplify things and throw out everything you do know because the details don't line up perfectly the first time? Why base a theory of climate on well-known, well-understand, and proven things like atmospheric chemistry and physics, and then try to understand the other factors that influence and complicate those physics, when you can instead simply invoke the powers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? -
andylee at 09:53 AM on 21 February 2012Examples of Monckton contradicting his scientific sources
I read through all the comments in the interest of balance - it was like watching angry snowmen denying summer. -
Stephen Baines at 09:51 AM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Bless you for having the patience to do this Dana. I also wonder if it's worth pointing out in a summary not only that he is wrong in the particulars, but that his positions are actually often self-contradictory and mutually exclusive. For example, in this case he argues in one breath for low climate sensitivity (by cherry picking tropical data) while invoking other factors (i.e., cosmic rays) that would require extremely high climate sensitivity. His just not arguing a coherent position. -
muoncounter at 09:16 AM on 21 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Camburn#111: "upturn in temperatures currently, would not as of yet made much of an impression on the reconstructions." That is just not true (and it certainly is unsubstantiated). See Fig 1 in Mann et al 2009: The reconstructions there show the MCA (formerly known as MWP) as well below +0.5C; we are now well above +0.5C. More significantly, the recent rate of change of temperature anomaly is unprecedented in the 1500 year proxy record. -
Tommi Kyntola at 09:06 AM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
The link to Church et al 2011 in the last paragraph has a typo, a missing slash before the www. -
Sapient Fridge at 09:04 AM on 21 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
The links under "detailed the various Monckton misrepresentations in the debate." and "Church et al 2011." don't work. (Delete this post after correction if you want) -
Camburn at 08:53 AM on 21 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
muoncounter, Tom, scaddenp: I appreaciate your comments. I do think you are missing my thought process to a point tho. When I look at temp reconstructions of the MWP, and look at current temperatures, I look at the scaling of the data. The upturn in temperatures currently, would not as of yet made much of an impression on the reconstructions. I used to agree that TSI was the predominant factor in the temperature rise of the MWP. New reconstructions of TSI, which we hope are more accurate, show that TSI was not an influence of increase during the MWP. Door 3 may be the logical conclusion. I have opened it, but I have not as yet stepped through it. -
Camburn at 08:39 AM on 21 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Tom@107: Please look at slide 7 of this presentation and tell me how solar/TSI caused the MWP. TSI and MWP comparisons. muoncounter: I havne't had a chance to read Crowley 2000 yet, but the presentation of your bottom pannel is very telling. I will also re-examine Mann 2009. It has been some time since I have read his last paper. -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:37 AM on 21 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Copie, weather changes all the time, climate doesn't. Climate is the long term statistical behaviour of the weather, and hence does not change constantly. Indeed you don't have to be a scientist to study climate, but you do need to keep detailed records, anecdotal evidence is known to be very unreliable. As for the more [CO2] the better, I think your lungs would disagree. -
John Hartz at 08:35 AM on 21 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
Copie: Most people rely on meteorologists to forecast the weather for the next few days and weeks. Most people rely on scientists to forecast the global climate for the coming decades and beyond. About your CO2 meme, it's been debunked many times over by SkS. -
muoncounter at 08:29 AM on 21 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Tom C: Your statement 'more recent work continues to show... ' (citing Swingedouw et al 2010) is only partially correct. That paper used the same TSI reconstructions as were used in 2000: The TSI variations that we use are deduced from the Bard et al. (2000) reconstruction and are the same as the one used by Crowley (2000). Bard 2000 (data here) is a radioisotope study; Crowley is heavily dependent on Bard's Be10 and C14 proxies. Crowley's figure 2 (in full scale pdf) makes this clear:
More importantly, the bottom panel in the figure demonstrates that recent forcing - from GHGs - is utterly unprecedented on this time scale. We have in fact made the 'MWP' vanish.
-
John Hartz at 08:23 AM on 21 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
@Michael of Brisbane #37: I completely disagree with your premise that a government entitity is an "industry." Does Autralia's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry constitute an "industry" in your opinion. -
DSL at 08:11 AM on 21 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Michael of Brisbane, if you can provide evidence that the bureaucratic elements of the various conferences on climate change have been hired specifically to assist dignitaries attending those conferences, then, yes, there is the beginnings of an "industry" (used in the late 20th century sense of the term). You seem to see a massive bureaucracy dedicated to a "pro-AGW" agenda. I doubt if there are many people who actively try to spread the theory of AGW in order to achieve job security. Then again, the theory is quite strong, and if you want to argue the reality and possible consequences, there are plenty of threads here at SkS. If you do understand the science, you must also realize that solving the problem is not an easy job. You understand the complexity of global politics and the global economy. You understand how difficult it is to change significant elements of culture (beliefs). You understand how consequences of large-scale, deliberate acts can have a range of unintended consequences (both positive and negative). You may understand all of these things, and yet you want to limit the number of people engaged in understanding them--people who are trying to find ways of solving the problem. True, if these "hangers-on" are actually the fops, courtly fools, and yes-men of the new kingdom, then they need to be excised. Consider this, though: the subject of this article is the Heartland Institute. It is a political organization demonstrably dedicated to misinforming the democracy (wasting taxpayer time and money by obscuring reality). It is comprised of a set of individuals who have had their misinformation revealed for what it is publicly (Monckton, Singer, Watts, et al.). They refused to publicly acknowledge their errors in fact and errors in methodology. What else could you call them but fops, yes-men, and courtly fools doing the bidding of their masters? (Yes, moderators, I know about accusations of dishonesty, but when the evidence is available (and lots of it), one has to accept the dishonesty as reality). You suspect government waste at Copenhagen and Durban. You have a ton of evidence of waste at corporate-funded organizations like Heartland. You choose to ignore the corporate waste (which you pay for through use of gas, oil, and a variety of products controlled directly or indirectly by the Heartland donors) and instead focus on what might be government waste or might be the same old staff presence. You might also consider how climate denialism has helped Copenhagen and Durban be much less effective (more waste). Michael, is AGW a problem, and if so, what will it take to solve the problem? By the way, the advisory group you point to is comprised of pre-existing entities. An industry has a fully-developed production-distribution-consumption(-waste, ignore me) cycle. If I lived in Australia, I would ask for budget transparency, unless, again, you want to argue about the simple need for such an organization. It is certainly easier to see waste if one doesn't believe in the need for spending.
Prev 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 Next
