Recent Comments

Prev  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  1289  1290  1291  Next

Comments 64151 to 64200:

64151. Philippe Chantreau at 19:53 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       AF, I do see what your point is, however (posted a little too fast) and it is valid. The political battle is indeed dirty business. I won't go to the "they started it" argument. It is unfortunate that it came to this. Tobacco harmed in more ways than just COPD, heart disease and cancer. It brought the bullshit wars to the point where most regular people can't tell what's real anymore. That the media is no more qualified than the public and feels obligated to always present "both sides" does not help. We live in a time when there is no reality, only opinions to be manipulated. Reality always catches up of course. For smokers, it takes some years and manifests most of the time as COPD, of which an exacerbation combined with pneumonia will usually lead to the end. For GW, we'll see.
64152. Philippe Chantreau at 19:40 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Actually thoughtful, there is a major difference here. Someone who was involved at a level deep enough to have access to these documents found it necessary to have them exposed. Someone with a conscience thought about it and made the decision. It is not at all like a hack who certainly was paid for his/her performance. That is why whistleblowing is so unlike hacking. Nobody leaked the UEA e-mails because nobody believed that there was really anything to leak, anything that was objectionable enough to be revealed. The e-mails were stolen then carefully cherry-picked and misrepresented to ensure maximum effect. Someone involved with Heartland believed these were bad enough that everybody should be aware of their existence. I guess there is hope after all.
64153. actually thoughtful at 19:33 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Dikran Marsupial - I agree. I was using Tom Curtis's analogy regarding embezzlement and burglary. As much as I abhor, detest what the Heritage Foundation does, and consider the Heritage Foundation to be evil, I am not aware of anything they were doing that is, in fact, illegal. Whistle blowing would seem to require an illegal activity that is exposed through the action of the whistle blower. If I missed that then I apologize. Without an illegal activity, we have a group actively working against the future of mankind, but not doing things that are explicitly illegal (some would say a synonym of this is "Congress"). Heritage has rights. They were violated. It wouldn't be a moral dilemma except for the fact that the violation of their rights benefits mankind (possibly - it depends if the media grabs onto this like they did the climategate thing - that is unknowable at the moment). After all, these budgets and memos aren't warming the planet and melting the glaciers - excessive CO2 emissions are - and that was established scientifically long before this, long before climategate. There is no scientific battle - there is only the political battle left. Lots of fantastic science left to do, but none that will change our actionable understanding of the problem. And winning political battles appears to be a dirty business. I think acknowledging the moral conflict is honest, and serves us well. This genie isn't going back in the bottle, but to stridently claim that this is remarkably different that the theft of the emails rings hollow and shrill, and is going to interfere with the real story. Always disarm your opponents strongest argument at the outset. Acknowledge the source was stolen documents. Then talk about what is IN those stolen documents. Win the political battle.
64154. Dikran Marsupial at 19:08 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       actually thoughfull wrote "indeed I would take embezzlement as a worse crime because of the betrayal of trust" The whole point of being a whistle blower is that the person concerned realizes that their trust was misplaced. While employers should feel they have a right to rely on the trust of their employees, they have a responsibility to be worthy of their trust. It is a two way street, with rights come responsibilities.
64155. Dikran Marsupial at 19:02 PM on 15 February 2012
       Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
       I suspect the Jasper Kirkby talk was this one. N.B. If he is right, it makes the "its the sun" argument rather interesting if more solar irradiance makes surface temperatures fall!
64156. actually thoughtful at 19:01 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       I am glad Daneel Olivaw raises the point that these are ill-gotten documents. It at least introduces a moral quandary, and realize the first line of defense from the deniers will be "what happened to your pious, sanctimonious drivel about stolen documents". This is a moment that we will learn something about ourselves (and indeed at the current ratio of 17:1 we now know). Using the term "whistleblower" makes us feel better. Rationalizing that this is for the good of humanity (which I happen to agree with) makes us feel better. Perhaps it comes down to the fact that I make no moral distinction between burglary and embezzlement (indeed I would take embezzlement as a worse crime because of the betrayal of trust). Just as freedom of speech necessarily implies tolerance for hate speech, claiming the moral high ground in terms of how information is obtained necessarily implies not getting some potentially damaging information (say the budget and internal operating memos of the Heritage Foundation). At a minimum, it would behoove us to acknowledge we are ceding that portion of the high ground. Self awareness is a valuable asset. Would knowing the identity of the "whistle blower" make this any more morally palatable? I don't think so - as the core issue is that these documents were obtained against the will of the document owners, and while I completely agree with Tom Curtis that the funding information SHOULD be public knowledge, the fact is it is NOT public knowledge, and this document cache is much larger than just who the funder are. I wonder if the Heritage Foundation will claim they are just forged documents?
64157. Bernard J. at 19:01 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Lloyd Flack's comment at #7 pre-empted my thoughts after reading the Anticlimategate* material, but it bears repeating... The Denialati are not interested in science, they are intent on the promulgation of propaganda. This says everything about the veracity of their 'case'. And what's the story with almost $100k for another surface stations project for Watts? Have they forgotten already that both Menne et al 2010 and their own sanctioned BEST [sic] project confirmed that there is no story there, other than what the professional scientists had said all along? I almost hesitate to use the word, but 'whitewash' anyone? Another thing: there has always been a clamour from the contrarians for various scientists to release their emails because they are public servants. Well, if the denialist lobby is intending to become involved in pushing curriculum units in public schools, doesn't that make them liable to the same requirement for public scrutiny? Can we now expect their all of email exchanges to be released? Geese and ganders, after all... Finally, Stevo, I wouldn't call you pessimistic, but realistic. The difference between smoking and global warming is that the whole of humanity and the biosphere is involved in the latter, most with no choice in the matter, and the warming/change is a juggernaut that can't be stopped once the momentum has significantly started. The smoking/harm relationship may be thought of as an arithmetic one and reversible except for the direct (usually voluntary) victims, where the emissions/harm relationship is geometric and irreversible even for people/species that have/had no involvement. [* Sorry, Lloyd, but the -gate is too juicy to resist.]
64158. Rob Painting at 18:45 PM on 15 February 2012
       Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
       jimb - "Climate models may have the wrong sign for solar irradiance forcing" What??? Do you have a link to the video?
64159. GreenCooling at 18:32 PM on 15 February 2012
       Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
       Many, many thanks Dana for this dissection of Dr Vahrenholt's deceptive drivel, I've been having a very robust debate with a pack of redneck deniers on a LinkedIn "HVAC Professionals" topic ("Is R410a WORSE for the environment than R22?") now approaching 650 comments, quite a record I understand! A couple of them have got excited that Vahrenholt is some kind of conclusive proof that they are right, and the "climaterrorists" and "ecoscammers" have finally been proved wrong, so it's been great to serve this back at them in response. I'm sure it won't change the minds of the chief protagonists, but many looking on will hopefully find it persuasive. Just wanted to express my thanks for all the work that goes into SkS and let you know how useful it is, all power to your efforts.
64160. jimb at 18:17 PM on 15 February 2012
       Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
       Just watched video of Dr. Jasper Kirkby (of recent CERN fame) giving a presentation at Simon Fraser University in 2011, where he set out his position that GCR levels/Solar levels were very closely correlated with temperature records for the past 9,000 years. He notes that correlation does not equal causation, and that his experiments at CERN are designed to test his hypothesis re causation. (i.e. CLOUD) He concludes his presentation with a summary slide, a portion of which states; 1.Solar contributions for 20th Century climate change are poorly understood, 2. Climate models may have the wrong sign for solar irradiance forcing and 3.there is possible unaccounted solar indirect forcing. This seems contrary to most of what I understand from this site, but it is probably due to my limited science background.
64161. Sascha Tavere at 18:15 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Well, I shall be writing two e-mails today: One to Naomi Oreskes wishing her a very happy day and one to Microsoft.
64162. Lloyd Flack at 18:06 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       One thing, no more "gate" please. I'm not the only person who find suffixing every claimed scandal with "gate" to be irritaing. Something else please! Now, what does this actually reveal? Well, nothing that we didn't suspect. They are talking about raising money but there is no indicatation that money is their primary motivation. Everything that they say supports claims of a primarily ideological rather than pecuniary motive for their actions. There is little talk about scientific reasons. Granted, I would not expect to fing a lot about the science in the plans of a political body. They have already sold themselves on the science and believe themselves. But they only talk about attacking the science of others and do not talk about any attempts to understand the climate themselves. This is, I think, revealing about the mindset. What would be a bad idea is to force these revelations into a pattern that maximises how righteous it feels to oppose them. I am talking about focussing on the money and ignoring the blindness that ideology can bring.
64163. owl905 at 17:48 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       "The environmental movement needs voices devoted to sound science ... " http://heartland.org/issues/environment
64164. Brian Purdue at 17:45 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       DaneelOlivaw@31 - Naivety will not save the planet. Whistle blowing is a legitimate and necessary way of exposing things against the public interest. In this case, the interests of the planet we call home. If you recollect, deniers first blamed someone within the East Anglia CRU because it added to their “claim” of a cover-up but it was illegal hacking of emails that went through the public airwaves that were used to try to discredit these scientists. You can be pretty positive these documents never got outside the confines of the Heartland Institute, so whistle blowing was the only way this was going to get out.
64165. Bert from Eltham at 17:43 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       So now the truth is out. It is not interpolation or extrapolation but projection! Bert
64166. Steve L at 15:52 PM on 15 February 2012
       New research from last week 6/2012
       Thanks Ari. I think the Classic of the Week is really a great idea, too.
64167. caerbannog at 15:46 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       It would be interesting to compare the "pay to talent" ratios of the denialists with those of James Hansen, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, etc. To keep the numbers on the same page, you'd have to plot them on a log scale!
64168. GreenCooling at 15:39 PM on 15 February 2012
       It's CFCs
       Sorry to discover this one a little late in the piece, I fully concur that it is incorrect to blame AGW entirely on CFCs, but I do think the contribution of the Montreal Protocol to reducing climate change is under recognised - both in terms of the abatement achieved to date by phasing out consumption of CFCs, and what it could yet do by financing recovery of ozone depleting CFCs and HCFCs, and by expanding its scope to address rapidly increasing HFC emissions. The best paper explaining this in the literature is Velders et al (2009) and briefing papers by the Environmental Investigation Agency are well worth reading in order to track this issue. The importance of looking at the 20 year Global Warming Potential values of HFCs is highlighted in this previously unpublished graph, which has recently been included in a Greenpeace International paper here. As the experience of getting rid of CFCs shows, this is a relatively easy task compared with abating CO2 emissions. While this remains of paramount importance, we are about to make the problem a whole lot worse if we continue to fail to take swift and serious action to prevent the projected volume of HFC emissions from occurring.
64169. Tom Curtis at 15:38 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       DaneelOlivaw @31, you are entitled to your own opinion (which is a polite way of saying that you are wrong). However, with hacking there are two questionable actions: a) The acquiring of information by an unauthorized person by illegal means; and b) The revealing of information to unauthorized people. With leaking, only the second applies. That is a clear difference. It is the same sort of difference that allows us to distinguish between burglary and embezzlement. Further, regardless of what various so-called "skeptics" claim, the fact remains that the Norfolk police are conducting a criminal investigation into what they believe was a hack. The so-called "skeptics" may know better, but only if they know who did it, in which case they are accessories after the fact by not reporting that information to police. Finally, regardless of the merits of this particular leak, it is in the public interest to know when particular commentators are being paid for the opinion they hold. I think it should be a matter of law that think tanks and lobby groups should be required to detail: 1) Who has paid them what, and what are the conditions of the grant; and 2) What moneys they have paid out to whom, and what are the conditions of the grant. Failing such law, democracy devolves to plutocracy with the highest anonymous bidder calling the shots. The ethical problem with this leak comes primarily from the fact that it presents a partial picture, rather than from any possibility it fails a public interest test for whistle blowing.
64170. Doug Hutcheson at 15:18 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Daneel @ 31, here is a difference: UEA emails were cherry-picked and quoted out of context, deliberately distorting their content and misrepresenting the intent of the authors; Heartland documents are being quoted verbatim and context is being given, without lies, spin or distortion. Like the UEA emails, these documents are now in the public domain. Were they stolen? Were they obtained by hacking into computers? Were they leaked by a legitimate whistle-blower? No doubt, Heartland will expand their budget to include monies to obtain legal redress, if a crime has been committed. The future of the planet is being threatened by organisations like Heartland, who do their best to obfuscate and disinform legislators on matters relating to the climate. For good or ill, the genie is now well and truly out of the bottle. I am happy to do my best to ensure that the cork cannot be replaced.
64171. skywatcher at 15:18 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       I wonder how the Web's self-styled "#1 science site" meshes with receiving funding from a source comitted to "... dissuading teachers from teaching science". Will we hear dear old Anthony decry the Heartland Institute for being deliberately anti-science and returning the funding he's been given? Or will Watts tacitly accept he's also anti-science and give up his "#1 scinece site on the Web" tag? I suspect a big hypocritical dose of neither...
64172. Doug Hutcheson at 15:04 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Glenn @ 28, Your figure for the NIPCC report is a bit low. It is actually at total of $1,593,000, with payments to lead authors accounting for $467,000 of that. See "Table 2. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Budget: 2010 - 2013". It seems that the price has gone up since the days when treachery could be bought for thirty pieces of silver.
64173. DaneelOlivaw at 15:00 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Sorry, but I don't really see much difference; hacking or leaking... the end result is that private documents are being made public and that is ethically (if not legally) wrong. Besides, the denialist crowd has also claimed that the UEA emails were leaked. From their side, the hacker actions were also justified since they view climate scientists as a threat in a similar way that we view professional deniers. I understand that some times the ends justify the means BUT I think that's at leas a conversation worth having. There is a moral component to reading and using this documents. Also, there's an argument about maintaining the moral high ground and not stooping to their level.
64174. Stevo at 14:58 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Dale There is a big difference between hiring a person to educate the general public about the findings of peer reviewed science and paying backhanders to selected persons for the purpose of keeping the public misinformed and in the dark about it.
64175. Stevo at 14:51 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       adelady, as ever your masterly way with words has lifted my spirirts. After that quick squirt to my armpits I'm already feeling refreshed. (I shall press the metaphore no further.) DaneelOlivaw, I've gotta agree with Phila and Steve L. These documents were leaked by a whistlebolower and not stolen or hacked. As far as we can see they are complete documents. The onus is upon us to neither misquote nor misrepresent them. Let the ugly truth speak for itself.
64176. Glenn Tamblyn at 14:46 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       I just tried posting a couple of comments over at WUWT, wondering what theur response might be to DenialGate. Instead of the usual awaiting moderation message nothing appeared at all. So I thought something had gone wrong and resubmitted the comments. And got a 'you have already posted that comment' reply. So they have them but they aren't coming up. Very queer. I wonder if they have gone into lock-down. Anyway, these were the comments I posted to no avail - maybe Anthony might get around to responding when he is a little less busy: =============================================================== Since you don't have a post up yet about Denialgate, I will comment here and you can then transfer comments across when WUWT does comment. One important comment that struck me from Heartlands little treasure trove was this this juicy little gem: “Development of our “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project. Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective. To counter this we are considering launching an effort to develop alternative materials for K-12 classrooms. We are pursuing a proposal from Dr. David Wojick to produce a global warming curriculum for K-12 schools. Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain- TWO KEY POINTS THAT ARE EFFECTIVE AT DISSUADING TEACHERS FROM TEACHING SCIENCE (my emphasis).We tentatively plan to pay Dr. Wojick $100,000 for 20 modules in 2012, with funding pledged by the Anonymous Donor. Cant have teachers teaching now can we. And pay a lot of attention to the ‘Anonymous Donor’ We will no doubt hear more about them, whoever they are. And generous to a fault: 2006 – $1,559,703 2007 – $3,277,000 2008 – $4,610,000 2009 – $2,170,590 2010 – $1,664,150 2011 – $979,000 Nearly 15 Million ponied up so far to fund the denial machine in just one ‘dont think tank’. Wouldn’t we love to see similar accounts from all the other dont think tanks. In the best of American traditions. You can always get what you want if you are willing to pay enough for it. And so the dumbing down of America continues…. =============================================================== Anthony, when will the new Temperature website be up and running? I'm sure Heartland and their Anonymous Donor would like to know their $88K is being well spent. And nearly $400K for the NIPCC Report. A bit pricy don't you think when the scientists who work on the IPCC report do it Pro Bono. Still $144K for Craig Idso, $60K for Fred Singer, even $20K for Bob Carter down in Australia. One only needs a few nice gigs like that and you have yourself a 'nice little earner' as they say. =============================================================
64177. adelady at 14:35 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Stevo@14 "Looking at ..... leads me to feel that the job of sowing doubt has already succeeded. Have people had long enough to make up their minds, set their opinions and move on ...?" I know it's depressing Stevo but there are positive indications. The FUD campaign on tobacco did delay action, but action was eventually taken. These clowns are now fighting a rearguard action in most countries and looking to new markets in others rather than pursuing or expanding a successful strategy. Public views on smoking changed and we now have effective programs in place. My other example might surprise you. Deodorant. No effective deodorants were available in the 50s. By the end of the 60s absolutely everybody used deodorant. Except for a few diehards .... who claimed that such fripperies were unmanly. (I worked with such a bloke in the 70s who used the 'unmanly' argument. Walking into his office on a warm afternoon when he'd ridden his bicycle to work in the morning was a great incentive for concise speech and brief conversation.) I suspect we're moving, however slowly, into the only-the-diehards-say-deodorant-is-unmanly stage of climate discourse.
64178. Phila at 14:27 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       DaneelOlivaw, I would not condone this type of action and I think SkS and the rest of the (true) sceptical community should make this very clear. Sorry, but I absolutely condone this type of action. I consider it a totally valid instance of whistleblowing. Given the stakes for all life on Earth and the secrecy of groups like Heartland, I think it's not just defensible but necessary. If anyone reading this has access to similar documents, I hope you also find the courage to do the right thing. Just one man's opinion, of course.
64179. Doug Hutcheson at 14:22 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       It seems they also have issues with freedom of information. Under "Overheads" in the 2012 budget we find:

       An estimated $36,000 to pay lawyers for litigation over whether Heartland can be forced to hand over records of conversations with a donor of some five years ago. Maureen Martin, our legal counsel, is working with a lawyer in Madison County, which is [d]ramatically reducing what would otherwise be the cost.

       They don't like the tables being turned, apparently.
64180. john byatt at 14:17 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       #1 Dana, Australian Dr Wes Allen "weather makers reexamined" seems to have relied heavily on Idso's misrepresentations of the science for his book of fantasy. . .
64181. scaddenp at 14:15 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Someone asking Bill Gates about Microsoft funding Heartland? Not exactly in line with Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation I would have thought.
64182. Norman at 14:15 PM on 15 February 2012
       NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
       muoncounter @65 Ok, I am done. Sorry for the off-topic chatter. Daniel Bailey does frequently warn me to stay on topic. Tom Curtis @63, Thanks for the link to the Konikow paper, I did read it.
64183. Tom Curtis at 14:11 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       DaneelOlivaw @20, there is a difference between the University of East Anglia emails, which where hacked (aka, stolen) and these which are reported to have been leaked. As such, the proper comparison (if you want one) is not to the UEA emails, but to the leaking of the Round 0 draft of the next IPCC report. There is an issue about leaked documents, ie, do they represent an illegitimate violation of confidentiality, or are they whistle blowing on matters kept secret in which there is a legitimate public interest in their disclosure. On the other hand, there is no question that hacked information is stolen; and once stolen their leaking may be an illegitimate violation of confidentiality or legitimate whistle blowing, but that does not change the nature of the original criminal offense.
64184. Steve L at 14:04 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       DaneelOlivaw -- I agree that stealing is bad. Do you know these were stolen? When can it be confirmed that these documents were or were not stolen.
64185. DaneelOlivaw at 13:54 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       I would add that this documents, just as the climategate emails, were stolen. I would not condone this type of action and I think SkS and the rest of the (true) sceptical community should make this very clear. That said, Holly Sh*t
64186. Doug Hutcheson at 13:48 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Australian readers will be interested in part of the 2012 funding for the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), showing links between Heartland and our very own IPA (Institute of Public Affairs):

       Table 3. 2012 Personnel Budget for NIPCC Project
       Payment/month	Name	Chapter	Institution	Country
       $1,667	Robert Carter	Co-Editor	James Cook University & Institute for Public Affairs	Australia

       The anti-science brigade have long arms and deep pockets.
64187. JP40 at 13:40 PM on 15 February 2012
       Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
       Getting off coal and oil electricity is what I meant. The main issue with efficiency is efficiently transfering the high-energy protons to electric current. Of course, if less than 1 percent of the money that goes into Tritium-Deuterium fusion, those issues would be solved much quicker than with only 1 colege professor and 5 graduate student working on them. Here is a link to a page you might want to read. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/536/1
64188. muoncounter at 13:40 PM on 15 February 2012
       NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
       Norman#61: Your AGU reference points up a major flaw in your argument. “The rate of depletion increased almost linearly from the 1960s to the early 1990s,” says Bierkens. “But then you see a sharp increase which is related to the increase of upcoming economies and population numbers; mainly in India and China.”--emphasis added Here's a graph of sea level rise: -- source The sharp increase in groundwater withdrawal does not appear in the sea level curve; groundwater cannot be a significant factor. This off-topic distraction must cease.
64189. Tom Curtis at 13:31 PM on 15 February 2012
       Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
       Enginerd @72, it's a bit hard picking out that blue dot siting astride the end of the trend line. But yes, it's there, and the highest to date.
64190. Enginerd at 13:28 PM on 15 February 2012
       Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
       For what it's worth, the latest data point for sea level was just posted---and it is the highest observation in the period of satellite record. One data point, I know, but we may indeed be heading out of the "pothole". [This is my first time posting a hyperlink using HTML. Forgive me in advance if I botched it...]
64191. dana1981 at 13:27 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Dale @15:

       "John Cook should also specify where all his funding is coming from."

       Skeptical Science doesn't receive any funding.

       "How many billions a year do Governments spend propping up the AGW message?"

       Um, roughly zero?

       "Also I can't believe you're making a mole-hill over a few million a year."

       Just "a few million" from one of the many climate denialist think tanks. Denialist damage control has begun.
64192. Norman at 13:26 PM on 15 February 2012
       NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
       Tom Curtis @55 Are you certain of your claim in point 1)? "Groundwater is water located beneath the ground surface in soil pore spaces and in the fractures of rock formations." Because it is located beneath the surface of the Earth, it is not subject to evaporation" Here is a study that directly contradicts your view. "Soil evaporation is a significant loss or depletion from the water balance. Most often, this water balance component is lumped together with plant transpiration into the collective term “evapotranspiration (ET).” However, because evaporation and transpiration are distinctly different phenomena, it is useful to consider evaporation explicitly and separately." source. I am sorry to continue to pursue this line of thought but you do question my integrity and indicate I am a dishonest person your quote: "But you have dug your heals in either because you are so intent on deception you do not recognize how transparent you have been, or because you are so foolish that you genuinely do not know what cherry picking is. In either case it makes no difference for the reader, your word, and your data is not to be trusted because you will not, or are incapable of handling it with integrity." I do like your points Tom but it is unpleasant that you think the worst of me. The final point. I reread the post you are bringing up and making the claim I am dishonest. Post @31 here is my claim in that post: "This means that the water pumped out of this aquifier will indeed add to the surface water amount. Yes it will add to the surface storage, the atmosphere and yes the ocean as well." There is nothing false or misleading in this statement. It is a factual comment based upon the evidence presented. The water pumped out of the Ogallala Aquifier will increase surface water storage. What is misleading in that comment or point? That is the only point I made in comment@31. I did not use this example to calcualte SLR, I only may the postive statement that from this particualr aquifier, it will add to the surface water.
64193. Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Dale @15, neither John Cook nor any other genuine scientist receives money conditional on their "...focus continu[ing] to align with [donors] interests." Evidently funding to and from the Heartland Institute does. This does not mean the individuals involved hold their ideas in order to receive a pay check, but it does mean that their pay check is conditional on their continuing to hold certain ideas. In contrast, scientists are not funded to hold specific ideas, but to test them and see if and how they are flawed. What is more, the quickest way to prominence for a scientist is to show how a widely accepted theory is flawed. Thus the payoffs in finances and prestige work in exactly the opposite direction to the payoffs from the Heartland Institute. The former work in favour of critiquing ideas, while the later works in favour only of preserving certain ideas from well grounded criticism.
64194. Albatross at 13:22 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       DougH @13, So WUWT is now confirmed to be part of the disinformation machine. Anthony Watts also is lined up to receive almost $100 000 for developing a web-site dealing with surface temperatures. Roger Pielke senior was closely tied to Anthony's surfacestations.org, I wonder how much (if anything) he receive for his efforts. This "debate" is not about science for the fake skeptics-- it is about spin, disinformation, advocacy, ideology and money. EOS. I'd like to see their reports circa 2009. I wonder whether or not hacking the CRU was on their agenda? ;)
64195. Albatross at 13:18 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       @15, And predictably the fake skeptics/trolls descend to try and defend the indefensible and dismiss this. LOL.
64196. Tom Curtis at 13:17 PM on 15 February 2012
       NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
       Norman @61, Bierkens and Beek, the authors of the poster to which you linked, are co-authors of Wada et al. They use a slightly refined version of Wada et al's method, adding only the use of water demand as a proxy for abstraction. As such, the are subject to the same criticisms as Wada et al as detailed in the quote of Konikow in my preceding post. Read that quote carefully. Better yet, read Konikow 2011 carefully and pay attention to everything. Finally, water held in dams is water not being held in the ocean. It does not matter where the water comes from.
64197. Stevo at 13:07 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       I hate to be the fly in the ointment here, but I wonder if this revalation is already too late. Looking at reader comments on news sites and blogs over the last couple of years leads me to feel that the job of sowing doubt has already succeeded. Have people had long enough to make up their minds, set their opinions and move on to other, more recently newsworthy topics? I hope not. I cannot back up my conclusions with data but feel that the denialists have given themselves a very strong lead and that few in the media will be bothered to return to climate science as a newsworthy topic. Sorry to be so uncharacteristicaly pessimistic.
64198. Tom Curtis at 13:06 PM on 15 February 2012
       NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
       KR @58, for the first time I am going to disagree with you (but not by much). Specifically, I am suggesting that Church et al, 2011 probably gives more accurate figures than Milly et al 2010. There results are as follows: The figures are not strictly comparable due to differing time periods, so convenience I have calculated Milly's figures for the 1993-2007 interval as a weighted average ((2*1993-2003 +2003-2007)/3). I have also combined contributions from all forms of ice melt, again for convenience of comparison. Finally, I have placed the difference between the equivalent Milly and Church figures (Milly - Church) in brackets after each figure: Observed: 2.9 mm/year (-0.32 mm/year) Thermal Expansion: 1.18 mm/year (+0.3 mm/year) Glaciers & Icesheets: 1.5 mm/year (-0.23 mm/year) In each case Milly's results are within the error bounds of Church et al's analysis, hence the small disagreement. In both cases, the GRACE analysis discussed in the OP strongly suggests that they have overestimated the contribution of ice melt. Specifically, over the period of the GRACE analysis, total ice melt contribution to sea level was 1.5 mm per year. Over the most comparable period from Milly et al (2003-2007) the combined ice contribution was 2.1 mm per year, suggesting Milly has over estimated the ice contribution by 40%, while Church has overestimated it by 61%. That would suggest that Church et al's residual for tidal gauges and satellite measurements should be around 1.35 mm per year, which is a large hole in their budget. It should be emphasized that these figures are approximate only because, firstly the periods of analysis do not strictly correspond, and secondly because of the short duration of the GRACE study which means it is significantly influence by short term effects. In particular, the GRACE analysis includes the very wet Asian Monsoon of 2010 which is likely to have contributed substantially to snow fall in the Himalayas, significantly altering the glacial mass balance compared to the preceding decade. Never-the-less there is clearly still some way to go before we can be entirely confident in Sea Level budgets. Finally, you will have noticed that Church et al show a greater contribution to sea level rise from ground water depletion than to Milly et al, but that net contribution from terrestial storage is negative. Church's estimate is based on that in Konikow 2011, with Konikow being a co-author of Church et al. (More on Konikow 2011 later.) I notice that Norman now pins his confidence in Wada et al, 2010. In doing so, he ignores the careful analysis by Wada comparing (surprise, surprise)recharge to abstraction (withdrawals). Further, he quotes a document that concludes global groundwater depletion was 243-323 km^2/year with an annual contribution to sea level rise of 0.8 mm/year as supporting his claims that groundwater depletion was about 545 km^3/year, and the sea level contribution was 1.52 mm/year. He is also citing a paper that claims that groundwater depletion averages at 40% of total withdrawals in support of his methodology of ignoring recharge. Apparently he has no sense of irony. Given Norman's reliance on Wada (a distinct improvement from his previous position if he actually accepts their results), it is worthwhile quoting Konikow's critique of Wada et al:

       "The first two estimates are based on a limited number of direct aquifer evaluations. The estimate of Wada et al.[2010] is derived using an indirect, flux‐based water budget approach that assumes that groundwater depletion is equal to the difference between natural recharge and withdrawals—an approach that is not based on observations of groundwater conditions. Recharge values are derived from global‐scale modeling designed to estimate “diffuse” recharge from climatic data and soil properties [Döll and Fiedler,2008]. This methodology does not calculate recharge from surface‐water bodies, nor adjust depletion estimates in accordance with Theis’ [1940] principles, which are applicable regardless of climate (Wada et al. [2010] only allow this for humid climates). Even in the Nubian Aquifer system—the classical example of a fossil groundwater aquifer having no modern recharge—about 25% of the total withdrawals in 1998 were offset by (and derived from) reductions in natural discharge from the system (such as to springs and oases) [CEDARE, 2001]. The global modeling approach to estimating natural recharge also does not account for “non‐natural” non‐diffuse recharge, such as leakage from canals, sewers, or pipelines, or from artificial recharge—none of which depend on climate and soil characteristics inherent in their recharge estimation model. Hence, the flux‐based water budget approach of Wada et al. [2010] can substantially overestimate groundwater depletion. Problems with the approach of Wada et al. [2010] are illustrated by examining their results for areas in the US where depletion data exist. Figure 2 of Wada et al. [2010] shows highest rates of depletion in four areas in the US (red zones, rated at 300–1000 mm/yr of depletion), which appear to include the Los Angeles and San Diego areas of southern California. In the Los Angeles area, depletion is closely tracked by local agencies. These data and analyses (see auxiliary material) indicate that from 1961 to 2008 the cumulative change in storage was an increase of ∼0.20 km³, and in 2000 was a decrease of ∼0.04 km³/yr. This corresponds to a rate of depletion of less than 20 mm over the area of resolution of the map of Wada et al. [2010]. In the San Diego area, there is no large‐scale development of groundwater, and no reported depletion problems of significance."

       Konikow uses empirical measurements of groundwater depletion in the US to calibrate his estimates. While superior to Wada et al, this approach of assuming the USA is typical of global ratios between depletion and withdrawals is dubious. Consequently we should also expect further improvements on Konikow's, and hence Church et al, 2011's, estimates of groundwater depletion.
64199. Doug Hutcheson at 13:01 PM on 15 February 2012
       Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
       Not to mention the admission of the existence of a denialist army, as they say they are working in

       coordination with external networks (such as WUWT and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)

       (my emphasis added). Do they fund the inciters of hatred, who post email addresses such as Katharine Hayhoe's? Where's my share of the billions supporting AGW 'alarmists' we are always hearing of? I could do with $80K to build a new web site ... tax free, of course.
64200. Dale at 12:58 PM on 15 February 2012
       Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
       Shame I can't get to Sydney on that date (was there last week). I'd take you up on the challenge. Come to Melbourne, John.

Prev  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  1288  1289  1290  1291  Next