Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 Next
Comments 63651 to 63700:
-
scaddenp at 10:27 AM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam, still waiting for you to pick something which you think convincing. Closest so far would be Douglass 2007, see here and then take it the appropriate thread. -
owl905 at 10:19 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Typical Moncton - calls someone fascist while displaying the nazi swastica. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:07 AM on 22 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
The WSJ has now published a 'skeptic' response
432 comments to it already, with the same old ratio of deniers to real sceptics. SkS debunking might amount to repeating much of what has already been said, because I saw nothing new in the letter. It seems that letters such as those from the 16 'concerned scientists' do little but subtract from the sum of human knowledge. I almost wish that the ENSO would reverse right now, so temperatures would resume rising unequivocally and make these disinformers look as wrong as I suspect they are. Almost. The trouble is, it will take unequivocal and widespread extreme, heat-related weather events to get the attention of Mr. Average and gain traction in the MSM. In other words, people are going to have to die before the message can get through and that is going to depend upon the MSM reporting the catastrophes and connecting the dots to AGW. I can only hope the situation becomes bad enough that it cannot be ignored, without involving the loss of the great ice sheets, or too many innocent lives. -
Tom Curtis at 09:53 AM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam: 1) Accusing somebody of fraud on the basis of false, but easily checked information is never a small "minor point"; 2) I notice that you have not responded to my request that your check the validity of Monckton's purported direct quote of Al Gore. Please do so, and to not make ridiculous claims about my responding only to one "minor point" until you do so; 3) While you are about it, would you care to indicate whether or not Monckton's purported direct quote of Justice Burton is accurate? (Hint: it is not.) You want to treat Monckton's claims about the St Regis tower as an aberration, when example after example shows that getting facts wrong is his modus operandi. The man is literally a conspiracy theorist. He is literally a promoter of a "miracle cure" in the fine tradition of snake oil salesmen everywhere. He is a self admitted liar. And yet you expect us to believe things because "Monckton said". Wake up and smell the coffee. -
idunno at 09:53 AM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Fans of the great man may be pleased to hear that we have been promised a new instalment of His Sublime Fragrant Viscountness's wisdom, due to be lavished on a grateful peasantry some time soon... On 7 February, WUWT published the latest in their Monckton/potholer debate. After posting a quite pricelessly irrelevent critique Al Gore, Christopher has promised an actual reply to potholer's work "in a fortnight". Anthony Watts is refereeing this, so I expect that His Imperial (and Simultaneously Metric) Lordship may be allowed a little more time... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/ ...but even so, I can hardly wait. He is better than Wodehouse. -
elsa at 09:52 AM on 22 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Scaddenp lest you think that it is only "denialists" that think along lines like the piece that you quote from me I would ask you to remember what james Lovelock had to say about the models: "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." Turning to the two pieces that you list: B&S talk mainly about solar forcings so are not really relevant here. The broeker study makes some forecasts of warming throughout the years 1940 to 1970. Here it would appear it did not even get the direction right let alone the quantity. The final decade that they list (to 2010) also has the greatest temperature increase, yet we know from elsewhere on this site that the trend was flat for that period at least on the surface. I would not agree with you that a model can differ on how to compute anything. You can feed in a set of assumptions to a model and look at the outcomes. The computation is a given, only the assumptions can be different. Bernard J I can assure you that I am not a troll. If someone provides proper logical answers to my detailed criticisms I will be happy to shut up and go away. Your post does not begin to do this. -
JP40 at 09:24 AM on 22 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
I have read more stuff about this silly theory and it is saying basically that the inner core would move towards Pangea and that would cause the gravity imbalance. The inner core contains about 2% of the earth's mass, and although it can move relative to the outer core, it is impossible for there to be a significant imbalance in the earth's mass. Think of the earth as a spinning object, because you obviously haven't. can we please stop discussing this lunacy and talk about the implications of the extinction on climate change today. -
DSL at 09:12 AM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Defending Monckton with Poptech, with a healthy side of "E&E is legit!." Surely there's a mirthy analogy. This is like the anti-critical thinking trifecta. Imagine a world in which the science published in E&E was the best humanity had to offer. Talk about catastrophes. Adam, you're a curiosity. You have enough skill to understand a wide range of concepts, and you've done some reading. Yet you spend your time and energy defending goofy rhetorical games from Monckton, a wholly transparent and pathetic attempt to bandwagon the unwary (Poptech), and a journal that is a laughingstock for very obvious and well-documented reasons. I don't get it. I mean, I can come to several more probable conclusions from this small set of evidence, but moderation policy prevents me from listing them. -
pbjamm at 08:53 AM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam: @12 - "Abraham has had nearly two years to respond to Monckton, yet he has not done so. When Abraham did his presentation, he had the responsibility to reply to any critique." @89 - "I'm sorry, but I don't really have the time or energy to respond to every single one of the points you listed." So Abraham is obligated to respond to Monckton's gish-gallop of a reply but you are allowed to dismiss counter evidence because it is too much work to go through? Double Standard. -
Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Thanks Paul. I'll correct the typo. Thanks MA Rodger: 1.2 +/- 10% is more accurate. -
chris at 08:36 AM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam, if we want to assess whether the MWP was warmer or cooler than now, we need to put aside our preconceived agendas, and assess ALL of the evidence. If Kiegwin shows that temperatures in the Sargasso sea were warmer during the MWP than now, but the adjacent Laurentian Fan was much colder during the MWP than now, and that this is consistent with other evidence for a redistribution of heat due to ocean and wind currents, then we don't throw away all the inconvenient evidence that doesn't fit our agenda and cherry-pick a bit we like. Obviously if we want to assess whether the MWP was hemispherically or globally warmer or cooler than now we have to assess the data incorporating ALL of the paleoevidence. Every time this is done (there are more than a dozen studies multiproxy reconstructions published in the last decade), these always show that current temperatures are quite a bit warmer than during the MWP. You've shown an astonishing willingness to defend the indefensible. You consider it acceptable that: (i) Monckton uses a fabricated quotation to insinuate that Sir Richard Houghton supports falsehoods. (ii) Monckton uses a made-up graph to pretend that Huang's borehole data supports a cooler contemporary temperature than during the MWP even though Huang makes it very clear that the borehole data presented doesn't extend past the 19th century. When Huang presents a later full borehole data set that extends into the mid-late 20th century, the data indicates contemporary temperatures are warmer than during the MWP. (iii) Monckton cherry-picks one piece of Keigwin's sea temperature reconstruction, when assessment of all of Kiegwin's data gives zero evidence for a warmer MWP than now. (iv) Monckton misrepresents the work of Schonwiese, Esper and Schweingruber since the analyses of all of these scientists indicates that in their study context late 20th temperatures are warmer than during the MWP. ..you support all of those appalling and blatant misrepresentations... -
funglestrumpet at 08:19 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
In one episode of Fawlty Towers a guest, who is a psychiatrist, turns to his wife and says of Basil Fawlty: "There's enough material there for a whole week-end conference." I can imagine a real-life psychiatrist saying much the same of Monckton. Watching him in various videos, not all of them concerning climate change, I am of the opinion that he has a deep psychological need to be the centre of attention. He compounds this with symptoms of a superiority complex. What I can’t decide is whether he has an inferiority complex presenting as a superiority complex, which is not uncommon, or that he genuinely has a superiority complex. I hope for his sake it is the latter, as it will give him a defence. If it is the former, then all it explains is his motive for what would have to be described as deliberate acts of deception on an issue that threatens a great many human lives. I think is he is on borrowed time. When the next El Nino comes along, it will blow all the “It has stopped!” nonsense out of the window. Extreme weather events are not to be wished for as always there are people who suffer, but they do have a silver lining in that they lend weight to the fact that climate change is a danger and that if we carry on as the likes of Monckton would have us do, then it can only get more dangerous, and probably extremely so. I don’t know if we are actually there yet, but if we aren’t, we are not far off the time when Monckton and his ilk should be investigated in relation to a charge of committing a crime against humanity. Unless, of course, trying to hinder, and if possible stop, the action that we need to take in order to save large numbers of human lives is not a crime against humanity. It would make sense if any lawyers reading this could explore this matter and advise us accordingly. One thing I do know is that any jury would not consider only 3% of climate scientists supporting their case a ‘reasonable doubt’ when deliberating their verdict, especially when it can be shown that the work of this 3% has been debunked and when it is their own children and grandchildren that are destined to be victims of the crimes of those whose verdicts they will be deliberating. I sometimes wonder if Monckton, and those of a similar persuasion, think this is all a game and that there are no consequences for their behaviour. It is about time they were not only disabused of that notion, but also made aware of just how punitive those consequences are likely to be. Perhaps their only salvation is to get on board and help us fight climate change together instead of taking up our time in fighting them instead of it. A big step. And one that will soon be too late for them to make. It will not be long until such a move would be seen as purely cynical. Future historians will no doubt look back at this period and be aghast at just how clear the science was regarding the danger and also how urgent the need for action. They will also see just how powerful was the lobby refuting it. I imagine they will be dumbfounded when they see that many members of this lobby were doing so purely for commercial reasons, even in the knowledge that it clearly meant that their own children and grandchildren would suffer. I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of such behaviour. At least Basil Fawlty makes me laugh. Monckton does just the opposite. -
Tom Curtis at 08:07 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Adding to Alex C @25, we also wrote to Monckton requesting that he clarify certain points, and he declined to reply. People who have read Monckton's various responses to Abraham and to "John Cook" (sic) will have noticed that he makes a point of saying that his critics need only to have written to him for clarification for detailed citations, and clarification of various arguments. As it turns out, when put to the test that is an empty offer made solely for rhetorical effect. -
A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam - “Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable?” KR might I once again remind you that I gave you a list of over 900 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments and you have completely ignored it. PopTech's list of papers is not relevant to this discussion. I asked you to point out a single climate claim of Monckton's, contrary to the consensus on climate science, that is supportable. You have not. I'm of the opinion that you cannot. Instead - you repeat Gish Gallops, introduce red herrings such as the PopTech list, and (IMO) basically troll. The only science you have discussed (so far as I recall) is the MWP - where the evidence shows warm periods were not synchronous across the globe, and hence the temperature of the overall climate was not as warm as present. And in the process you somehow ignore the multiple documented instances of Monckton misrepresenting scientists works, misquoting, and overall presenting a misleading view of the the science. -
Adam at 07:41 AM on 22 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
dhogaza, 60 “It's obvious you've not taken a look, because the list includes many things that aren't peer reviewed papers in any scholarly sense (poptech has his own definition).” Every single paper on the list is peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Dhogaza, 61 “Once again, Adam makes a strawman claim that was not made by AIT ("next 100 years" "near future"). How often does he get to repeat this falsehood? “ You are again completely missing the point. I accept that AIT never gave an exact timeframe (and I have acknowledged this in this discussion) But the very fact that Al Gore showed these expensive computerised images of all these major cities being published Strongly implied that it was going to happen in the near future. People watching it would not think that the ice sheets were going to collapse in hundreds or thousands of years, they would think that it was going to happen in the near future. Yes, Al Gore didn't give an exact date for it, but it was very misleading the way it was presented in AIT KR, 61 “Monckton is the one making extraordinary claims (that all of climate science is incorrect)” Please point out where Monckton has ever claimed the whole of climatre science is incorrect? “Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable?” KR might I once again remind you that I gave you a list of over 900 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments and you have completely ignored it. Paulhtremblay, 63 “None of the articles presented by Poptech refute global warming. .... Instead of actually addressing that issue, you link to yet another rebuttal by poptech,” Did I claim that the articles presented by Poptech refute GW? I'm not sure how you can claim that “I'm not addressing the issue” since I never made that claim anyway. I was simply pointing out that this website had not responded to Poptech on his rebuttal. “Let me give you another challenge to bring up one article from poptech that actually bolsters your claim that the peer reviewed science supports Mockton. Specifically, show a peer reviewed article that undermines a specific claim made by the IPCC in a significant way.” Well, obviously you have not read any of the papers on the list, but as an example there is Douglass et al, 2007, which supports Moncktons claiims about troposheric temperature trends. Scaddenp, 64 “However, to substance, he refuses to remove papers that the authors themselves are wrongly on the list, includes letter, reviews etc. that are not peer-reviewed and journals (esp E&E) that are not peer-reviewed in the sense normally understood by that. “ The list clearly states: Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary. The author's personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It is the actual scientific data that is presented in their papers that are relevant. And E&E is a peer reviewed journal Correcting Misinformation about the Journal Energy and Environment Paulhtremblay, 65 “First, the MWP was not global” in your opinion “so it would not give any information on climate sensitivity. Accounting for its local variations and the overall Global temperature does not contradict any of the models of climate sensitivity.” I'm sorry but that's not a valid argument. It was claimed on this thread that if the MWP was warmer it would mean that climate sensitivity to co2 would he high. But now you're saying that it doesn't matter that (in your opinion) MWP wasn't warmer. That climate sensitivity would still be high. Look, either the MWP does tell us about climate sensitivity or it doesn't you can't have it both ways. I personally think that it is entirely plausible that the MWP temps were higher/the same as today and climate sensitivity is still low. I do not believe the claim that strong MWP means high climate sensitivity, is supported by convincing evidence. Skywatcher, 67 “perhaps a clarification required, as using the climate of the past 750 years (admittedly not right through the MWP), Hegerl et al 2006 show climate sensitivity comparable to IPCC projections.” I was unable to find a PDF of that paper, so I only had the abstract. As you point out they only analyse climate of the past 750 years. I personally think that this is too short a time span. They may have got significantly different results if they had analysed say, the past 1500 years. Also, in their abstract they don't even mention what the implication would be for climate-sensitivity if the MWP was warmer. So it doesn't really do that much to support your argument. There have also been some references in the literature that the modelling data they used may have been unreliable. eg. Scafetta, 2009 http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf “Some authors(North etal.,2004;Hegerletal.,2006,2007) use typical EBMs.The adoption of EBMs is particularly useful if the interest focuses on local temperature records,but becomesless useful if the interest is in the global average temperature.” funglestrumpet, 68 I'm not sure how anybody can claim that somebody should be locked up, simply because their views on an issue differ from your own. Do you not believe that people have the right to freedom of speech? Tom Curtis, 71 “1) The other graphs shown by Monckton all appear to be local, not global temperatures, and therefore cannot show a global event;” Monckton never claimed that his graphs represented global temperatures. The warmist argument is that MWP was a regional phenomenon located mainly in the UK and Greenaland. All Monckton was simply trying to show is that there is indeed evidence of a MWP outside of those areas. “Those graphs differ from each other about the timing of peak warming, with some graphs showing significant cooling where others show peak warming.” Well, you would expect there to be some difference in the timings of the warming and cooling periods in the graph, since they are all from entirely different independent studies. “One of the proxies (Esper and Schweingruber) shows not temperatures but altitudes of the tree line. “ Monckton has never denied this he clearly mentions it in his reply “the conclusion in their graph that in the medieval warm period treelines in the polar Urals were considerably higher than they are today, suggesting that the weather was considerably warmer and wetter than today?” “I note that you persist in misrepresenting Al Gore as claiming that sea levels would rise by six meters in a century. Would you kindly point out where in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says that? (Hint: He doesn't)” Once again read my previous comments, as well as the paragraph above on AIT. I don't deny that AIT never gave a timeframe. I never stated that Al Gore gave an exact timeframe. What I was saying is that because of the very expensive images he showed of modern cities getting flooded, it was heavily implied that it would happen in the next century. That's what anybody watching his film would come to the conclusion to. Tom Curtis, 73 Now, you have obviously done a lot of research on that claim. And you make a good point. A lot of people don’t check things for themselves, when they should do so. Now, I’d just like you to know that I never agreed with Monckton’s argument about Al Gore’s mansion. I thought that it was a poor argument and should not have been included in his presentation. But that really was just a very minor point in his presentation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the science. Tom Curtis, you can’t just write long rebuttals to just a single very minor point, and act like you have shown everything Monckton has said to be completely wrong. Now, you obviously believe that Monckton was deliberately lying about Al Gore’s mansion. I know that what you pointed out about one argument, does look pretty bad, but think about it. Monckton included the reference to Gore’s mansion in his personal letter to Abraham. If Monckton really was deliberately lying, why would he have written it in a personal private letter to a professor whose views strongly opposed his own. I personally think it was simply a display of ignorance on Monckton’s part. I know you’re probably going to accuse me of being a “denier” and “defending my idol”, but I really do think you’re making too much of a big deal out of such a minor point. The Gore’s mansion argument was not a scientific argument, nor was it made out to be one. It has nothing to do with the science. It’s funny how people can spend a lot of time checking the actual science behind different issues, yet don’t bother to check very minor and unscientific points, simply because it’s not that important. I do believe this is what happened with Monckton. He was careless on an issue, and it has made him appear in a bad light. Tom Curtis I’m not saying that skeptics are right about everything. There are some arguments by skeptics I don’t agree with. Skeptics don’t have a single unified view. There is always going to be misinformation on both sides of a debate. But people need to learn the difference between a genuine error and deliberate disinformation. I think that people here’s personal feelings (hatred) for Monckton are clouding their judgement into thinking that everything he does is “evil”. But Monckton is human. Humans make mistakes. It happens. Simply stressing minor points, like you did above is irrelevant to the actual scientific debate. I really would be better if could just stick to the science. Tonydunc, 79 Sorry Tony, but your very cursory dismissals of each point are not every convincing. Tonydunc Abraham listed those brief phrases, which he claimed summed up Monckton's arguments. I don't think you understand. Abraham is trying to make Monckton look like an average stereotypical “denier” whose arguments are weak and simplistic. What Monckton was trying to show is that his arguments were actually more complex than Abraham made them out to be, so therefore he was misrepresenting his position. I'm sorry, but I don't really have the time or energy to respond to every single one of the points you listed. Chris, 81 I do not believe that Monckton was cherry picking. Dr Keigwin's own paper clearly showed that MWP was indeed warmer in that area than the present. There are always papers showing different interpretations of climate change data. Proxy data is a very complex issue. But there was nothing which directly refuted the conclusions made by their 1996 paper. Look, we're getting nowhere on this thread. I seem to have upset a lot of people who clearly have very strong personal beliefs regarding Monckton. How about we just agree to disagree. You have all made up your own minds on this issue. We are never going to come to a satisfactory conclusion. So, if any of you can provide me any reason otherwise, this will be my last comment on this thread.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Further discussion of 'things Al Gore may or may not have said' is off topic for this thread, as is any further reference to whatever Poptech may or may not say on his blog.Long rambling replies to multiple commenters tend to be very difficult to follow.
-
muoncounter at 07:41 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
pirate: "Before anyone anyone makes a claim that the science curriculum being developed is "anti-science",..." Review whatever you like. But read the motivation for the curriculum, which was confirmed as genuine by Dr. Wojick: Many people lament the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn't alarmist or overtly political. ... Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. And you expect that whatever materials that follow will not be 'overtly political'? How can anything that is built on that preamble not be anti-science? If you need a refresher on what anti-science can sound like, look here. "When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment ..." Like it or not, this is partly a political struggle. Before condemning Gleick, be sure you've condemned those who profited from sensationalizing hacked emails. -
MA Rodger at 07:17 AM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
You cite Hansen & Sato 2011 for the 1.2 degC for 'direct' 2xCO2 warming. Okay it's good and recent, but what's wrong with the more authoritative 1.2 deg C (+/-10%) IPCC AR4 2007. For myself, when I hear somebody saying the figure is 'somewhere near 1 degC,' I find it almost always is followed by a bunch of obvious denialist statements. -
Copie at 07:17 AM on 22 February 2012Global Warming and Cold Winters
You are clutching at straws here comparing CO2 with arsenic. For instance,CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide. CO2 is less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases in the atmosphere. Telling people to reduce CO2 is like sayiing we should reduce oxygen!Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is off-topic, please take it to a more appropriate thread, such as CO2 is a trace gas. Any further posts on this subject on this thread will be deleted. -
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 22 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
For all of 14 years, it has been hot. For trend, El Ninos dominance in first half and La Nina in second half has an influence. However, all of this is quantified in F&R and no amount of hand-waving by you can change that. The numbers speak for themselves. -
scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
apirate - profoundly disappointed. The means matter, and I think Gleick's actions were dishonest, not justified and profoundly damaging for improving public understanding of climate science. -
Paul from VA at 07:01 AM on 22 February 2012Uncertainty Is Not the Basis for Investment
Typo in your first sentence, Forbes article is Feb. 2012, not 2011. -
william5331 at 06:38 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
The question of what effect increased cloud cover will have on climate change remains. In that respect, can anyone tell me why Venus which has complete unbroken cloud cover is so hot at the surface. One would make a wild, first approximation guess that despite her nearness to the sun, the cloud would reflect 90% of the incoming solar radiation. What is happening here and is there any relevance to cloud cover on earth. Has it anything to do with the composition of her clouds which, I believe, are sulphuric acid. -
John Hartz at 06:08 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I suspect that the Heartland Institute purposely concocted a faux strategy document and mailed it to Gleick in hopes that he would make it public. What they did not anticipate is that he would surreptitiously acquire internal email documents from them. What ensued is a "sting operation" gone awry. -
scaddenp at 05:42 AM on 22 February 2012Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
Having rather more than "basic" knowledge of physics, geology and mathematics, I have no problem in dismissing it out of hand. -
CBDunkerson at 05:21 AM on 22 February 2012New research from last week 7/2012
Ridley 2012 appears to be using yet another definition of 'tipping point' which is radically different than my understanding of the intended usage. They conclude that there is no tipping point in Arctic sea ice extent because if CO2 returned to pre-industrial levels 1000+ years from now the sea ice would recover. Thus, this Ridley paper seems to be defining 'tipping point' as a change which can never be recovered from... and therefor finding no 'tipping point' for Arctic ice extent. However, my understanding has always been that the suggestions of a 'tipping point' for Arctic ice extent have referred to a point where the anthropogenic forcing had progressed far enough that natural feedbacks would result in the eventual disappearance of all the sea ice, even if the anthropogenic forcing stabilized. -
Alex C at 04:30 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
tmac57 @23: Monckton's article that he posted to WUWT stated that he requested us to publish his post, and we did receive such a request. It wasn't 24 hours later that he published on WUWT, and as I understand it we were not able to make any sort of communication with him in that time frame to take advantage of that courtesy. If one can even call it a "courtesy," of course - we were requested to publish, not to review and vet. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:23 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
DSL at 242 The edition I am cut/pasting from is 2004. You can access it through www.nexuslearning.net. I have the 2008 edition in my room and the climate change/global warming section in it is expanded and has taken on a more definitive tone. Unfortunately, most school districts (that I know of) are still using the 2004 editions due to budget issues. And, that is the real travesty. Supplemental resources that are fair and balanced would be welcomed by most teachers. -
SirNubwub at 04:18 AM on 22 February 2012Climate sensitivity is low
Sphaerica and Tom Curtis, Thank you for your replies. I have not heard of a response to this issue before. I will have to read it carefully and repeatedly to understand it all. If I have further questions I will ask. I appreciate your time. -
apiratelooksat50 at 04:13 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
TC at 238 The direct link to AP College Board website is here. If you go to the main site and poke around. There is a fair amount of climate change material on different pages. Another excerpt from the workshop materials: "The process of changing from one equilibrium temperature to a higher one is the phenomenon referred to as global warming, and the gases that contribute to this process are called greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, but water vapor, methane, and other trace gases also can contribute to enhanced infrared radiation. The physical basis of the greenhouse effect is well understood, and the effects of increasing infrared active gases can be calculated with a fair degree of certainty. Most future environmental scenarios are based on an assumption of doubling the concentration of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and using computer models to predict a new equilibrium temperature. These models are based on firm theory and can be calibrated by using historical data. But most such models suffer from a need to estimate unknown factors such as the effect of clouds or temporal increases in water vapor. Accordingly, environmental implications and specific regional climate predictions resulting from such models are more uncertain than global warming itself." I am okay with that. And, I bet you are, too. -
DSL at 03:30 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
What edition of Environmental Science are you reading from, pirate? -
Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
apiratelooksat50 - "Before anyone anyone makes a claim that the science curriculum being developed is "anti-science", perhaps they should review that curriculum." From the Heartland fundraising document: "Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”). Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact (“environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather”), for Grade 6 on water resources and weather systems, and so on." (emphasis added) If you were to claim that those goals were not anti-science, I would have to say you haven't been following the science at all. And I would direct you to the 2007 IPCC report, and to the current literature. -
DSL at 03:29 AM on 22 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Note that the AP Workshop material posted by pirate is only from one section of the workshop, and the paragraph in question seems to ignore the defining presence of prior paragraphs. The key item for that workshop section, though, is that it is based on material published no later than 1999 (excepting one 2006 publication). It is not informed by AR4 and later model advancements and a decade's worth of data. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:05 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
It's almost comical how Monckton twists and distorts Garnaut's words. Garnaut says in essence that a rational person thinking about the issue in a rational fashion and weighing the probability that scientific maisntream has it righ would come to the conclusion it most likely has it right. This is obviously the description of a careful, well thought out reflexion. In Monckton bizarro world, it becomes "accept authority without question." It is appalling that ther are so many people who do not see the irony but in fact agree with him. The Moncktons of this world are extremely dangerous. They believe in their own nonsense. Whenever they manage to gather a following, they get intoxicated with that success and believe even more in it. Then they get crowds excited to the point of inciting them to actually carry on actions. Funny how Monckton projects and at the same time renders the accusation of acting exactly the way he describes moot, just because he used it first. I think Rove inaugurated this method with great success based on Luntz' ideas during the Bush campaign. The virulence and toxicity of the mind manipulators in the US has spilled over and reached concerning proportions. -
tmac57 at 03:03 AM on 22 February 2012Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
Gee,I hope you submitted this article to Monckton before posting it.You know how he insists that all criticisms of him must be vetted by him personally before the are made public (although I doubt that he extends the same courtesy to the targets of his nasty attacks) -
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."
Prev 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 Next
