Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 Next
Comments 64451 to 64500:
-
Camburn at 09:12 AM on 12 February 20122010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Normal@418: I didn't see any mention of the storm in 1944, or 1970 at Tuktoyaktuk. Flood Hazard Delineation at Tuktoyaktuk -
Camburn at 09:04 AM on 12 February 20122010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Here is an interesing bit of research on long time weather extremes: Weather from aprox 1AD to 1900 -
Camburn at 09:01 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Phillippe: IF you know of anything on the horizon, I am all ears to learn. -
Camburn at 09:00 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Philippe@61: The internal combustion engine was used on farms in the late 1800's. The power was there, the engineering was not but came very shortly thereafter. Right now, there is no alternative power, so the engineering can't even adapt to that. -
Jose_X at 08:58 AM on 12 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 1
Lord Monckton: Please, allow me to call you Chris as a way for me to more readily provide you with the human touch I like to give all my audience. I found myself agreeing with you on much, but a few things should be pointed out because I fear some audience members might be getting confused. For example, you stated the IPCC (the ih-pee-kak) obviously does not believe it can predict the future. Well, of course, they can't. Did you believe there truly were that many people in the audience who believed the IPCC or anyone can predict the future? That you decided to mention that widely understood point without a passing mention of what was really important in that section of the report, that the IPCC's job is to help manage probabilities and certainties, really confused me, and I think perhaps I wasn't the only one. So, yes, I agree with you, as does I believe almost every scientist of any variety. Scientists don't prove things. They try to discover the most likely options and quantify their understanding so that we can remove as much subjectivity from the process as possible. Now, that you next mentioned consensus was interesting. That did give me the impression for a moment that the actual target of your prior discussion were the many non-scientists out there who might have been tempted to think that having a strong gut feeling and banding together to tell each other their beliefs, for example, that man cannot much at all affect the climate or that basic concepts like the greenhouse effect don't exist, would be a reasonable substitute to doing science. They can have as much consensus as they like, but, in full and entire agreement with what you said, achieving a consensus of beliefs is not science. It never has been and likely never will be. This brings us to the next point. I entirely agree with you, again, and with Einstein, that it just takes one paper to show a bad theory for what it is. The slow consensus that has been building in climate science over the years has paralleled the reduction in the number of plausible theories. Sometimes a scientist has a hard time accepting that his or her theory really has very little chance of being accurate, but, on the whole, what survives and is embraced by those who practice science is what is sturdiest among the candidates. Consensus, while not being a requisite or a substitute for good science, tends to be a consequence of good science. I am not sure if I understood the evidence you presented for why you believe that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. I think the question of whether it absolutely is or isn't is overblown by many, but I do find it interesting how people who cannot agree on the very temperature of the planet over the past 100 years or even the past 5 years, as demonstrated as recently as the uproar that led to the BEST project (which ultimately confirmed what climate scientists on the whole already accepted) could somehow believe they really can accurately know how warm or cold the planet was in Medieval times. At the risk of appearing to disagree with you, I'll say that I have seen no convincing evidence that the Medieval times were warmer than today. You stated some individuals were under investigation by legal authorities. Can you give us an update on how that turned out or is turning out? Chris, in the next part, you accused a single person of rewriting an important IPCC chapter in the 1995 report. Let me ask you, Chris, if you were present at the debates that ensued at the time, as they tried to build consensus and come to agreement on the wording of that study? I was not there. If you were there yourself or have video you can show us, would you please help me understand why the speaker in the first few minutes of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTsc3jV1Otw , provided courtesy of Standford University, is suggesting that the scientists who allegedly wrote the initial draft either agreed with the changes that were adopted by the IPCC or simply did not care about them? [In a world where politics sometimes trumps good science, I should point out that those initially objecting to the changes were all from a small group of major oil exporting countries.] Could you be more clear about the statistical fraud you had in mind. I would presume you meant McIntyre's criticism of Mann's statistics, but I don't think that counts as fraud. Of course, feel free to argue how fraud was proven. You go on to state that 1 degree Celsius is what is suggested by "all the science done by measurement and observation rather than by models." Allow me to be confused for a second. OK. I don't believe I have ever heard of real science ever done in any significant form that did not use models, that is, that did not use a physical or mathematical representation of objects and our world. Clever you are Chris. Surely, if science is always done using models to various degrees, then you were just stating, for our amusement no doubt, that while the majority of practicing climate scientists around the world (via the IPCC) agreed that 3 degrees Celsius is the mean value of warming expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide, that an alternative value of 1 degree Celsius is the conclusion arrived at by No One because no one performs science that does not use models. You clever logician. You almost had me thinking we would disagree. But to be serious, you were probably trying to make a distinction between theoreticians, such as Einstein, for example, on the one hand and those who work the laboratories but don't much manipulate the math and other elements of the models created by the theoreticians on the other. If this was your intention, would you please direct me to this long list of documents where I may witness how observation and measurement avoiding the use of physical and mathematical models suggest quality science and suggest 1 degree C. I want to research if perhaps a single paper for each such theory hasn't already been written up to put the theory to rest. Of course, I am sure I was not the only one confused. To many you probably appeared to suggest by your choice of words that scientists all pick either (a) to take the path of modeling with no observation or measurement or else (b) to take the path of observation and measurement without modeling. In reality, Chris, there really is a diverse middle ground where most scientists participate by making measurements and observations as they interact with the relevant models. At this point, I will take a rest, as I feel this reply has already become very long and the next section of the debate simply got me all twisted up out of the blue in a naught naught naught naught. -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:40 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Cambrn: "The cost of FF on a farm, transportation business ec is a huge component. It would be great to see an alternative, but as of right now, there just isn't. So, there is nothing to invest in." Transpose that about a hundred years ago or so: "The cost of horses on a farm, transportation business, etc, is a huge component. It would be great to se an alternative, but as of right now, there just isn't. So there is nothing to invest in." Meanwhile Mr Benz and Mr Ford were hard at work. I'm sure there were people to say that they did not have economically viable alternatives either... -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:26 AM on 12 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Winter albedo in the Arctic is not that much of a factor R.Gates, don't you think? -
Camburn at 08:21 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Sphaerica@59: Note the "at present there are no economic alternatives." The economics of the current rise in price of oil has slowed economic growth worldwide. To invest in an alternative tech, you have to have the potential profits to do so. When I look at a tractor, I see no medium with current, and even projected battery tech, that will do the work of FF. The cost of FF on a farm, transportation business ec is a huge component. It would be great to see an alternative, but as of right now, there just isn't. So, there is nothing to invest in. -
muoncounter at 07:54 AM on 12 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
Large eruption database shows the 1600 Peru eruption at 3.0 x 1010 m3 of tephra, or 3x Pinatubo; this is 1.5x the 13th century eruption at Quilotoa. Buntgen et al 2006 show a glacial advance following the 1600 eruption.
The upper curve is summer temperature from tree rings; the bottom curve is advance/retreat of the Great Aletsch glacier. At this level of resolution, the LIA splits into three mini-LIAs, making the 'recovering from LIA' meme even more of a stretch.
-
R. Gates at 07:22 AM on 12 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Indeed interesting times in the Arctic. Without a late season freeze up in the Barents or Kara, if these stay open, we are going to see some very low summer sea ice extent Arctic wide as the conditions in the early melt season in both these regions have a high degree of success in indicating how low the summer sea ice extent will be. Globally, even though the Antarctic is slightly above average, the large negative anomaly in the Arctic still makes the global sea ice extent very low. It is in fact, quite possible that we'll see the lowest global sea ice area and extent in the modern satellite era in the next few weeks. Though most won't think of this way, but that would possibly mean that we'll be seeing the lowest planetary albedo during this era as well, meaning of course more solar radiation staying in the Earth's climate system. -
Steve L at 07:10 AM on 12 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
For other reasons I just read this paper: Volcanic Ash as Fertilizer for the Surface Ocean (Langmann et al, 2010. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 3891-3899). At the end of the paper they mention Huaynaputina volcano in Peru in 1600 (cite de Silva and Zielinski 1998). They estimate that 9x10^15 g of Carbon were consumed by phytoplankton as a result, which they think reduced atmospheric CO2 by 10 ppm in Antarctic ice cores after 1600 (Meure et al 2006). It seems to me that a carbon pump effect (not to mention colder ocean surface absorbing more CO2) of volcanoes might help explain the persistence of the Little Ice Age. Is this already accounted for? -
dorlomin at 06:32 AM on 12 February 2012Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
The level of venom directed at Dr Mann has more than a hint of this about it -
dorlomin at 05:18 AM on 12 February 2012A prelude to the Arctic melting season
Your Ded Moroz link is not working. But if things do not improve radically over the next month the Svalbard polar bears are in for a long hard summer.Moderator Response: [DB] Thanks; fixed link(s). -
Bob Lacatena at 05:04 AM on 12 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Nobody should debate Monckton. He needs to be debunked regularly because less-than-skeptical skeptics laud and praise him, but he is not anyone in climate science. His world is made of misrepresentation, distortion, fantasy and gamesmanship. There is no point to debating such nonsense. Debunk, and move on. Giving the man the credibility that comes with bothering to debate him is giving him far more than his due. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:01 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
58, Camburn,This will change, as the price of oil continues to rise, but it will come with a culture and economic shock as well.
An interesting observation. As an alternative to such shock, might I suggest investing heavily in the technology and infrastructure needed to supplant oil, but as a reasoned and concerted effort now, due to foresight, rather than as a frantic and haphazard effort later, due to extreme price pressures? Just say'n. -
dana1981 at 04:23 AM on 12 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Ken - as CBD notes, this post is about McLean's failed prediction. If you want to argue about Foster and Rahmstorf, there is a comment thread on that post. If you want to make the 'warming stopped in [insert year]' myth, please take your comments to that post. -
wonderful world at 04:09 AM on 12 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Why would anyone debate Monckton? He's not worth the time or energy. He's really only got his reliance on titles going for him and that only appeals to Americans (hereditary tiltes are good for getting into restaurants in the US but they're BS really) Don't give him air, he can preach to any idiot that wants to listen but most will realise its just guff from a nobody. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:02 AM on 12 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
@MangoChutney The harm would be in it being a waste of time and energy (I suspect not quite as inexaustible as it would seem) that John could be using for something more constructive. I should add that Monckton is perfectly at liberty to debate his assertions on the relevant threads at SkS already. -
MangoChutney at 03:55 AM on 12 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
@Dikran I think we discussed this earlier - there's no harm in Cook asking for a written debate is there? The funny thing is I'm not entirely convinced Monckton would accept either -
Klaus Flemløse at 03:45 AM on 12 February 2012David Archer lecture series
Dear David, I am following your video lectures on global warming and I have bought the text book. It has been a great pleasure for me. However, I have found one case where I do not think you are right, and where a corrections may be needed. In you lecture dealing with Chapter 9, after 21 minutes, you are talking about Danish wind energy. You mention that “50% of the wind power is exported …”. This figure is not correct. The information you are referring to originates from misinformation published by oil funded groups in USA via the Danish 3rd party organization CEPOS with links to Bjørn Lomborg. It is not possible to determine the share of exported wind in the way CEPOS does, simply because it is not possible to separate electricity produced by wind from electricity produced by coal. If one should give a figure using pro rata production it is around 20%. The CEPOS report can be found here: http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf A reply from a group of scientists from University of Aalborg can be found here: http://www.energyplanning.aau.dk/Publications/DanishWindPower.pdf The controversy is also discussed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark The present Danish government wants to increase the share of electricity produced by wind from 20% today to 50% in 2020. -
Robert Murphy at 03:43 AM on 12 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Ken @10 "And ENSO effects are supposed to be internal to the system and not relevant to underlying trends. Why then 'remove' ENSO effects?" So you can remove the noise and better see the underlying trend. Why is that difficult to understand? -
Sapient Fridge at 03:17 AM on 12 February 2012Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate
Elsa I know my comment is rather late but I wanted to address your objection to people using ocean heat content as a measure. Try this analogy: Imagine you are sitting outside in the sun and you want a cool drink, so you put ice cubes into your Pimms (or other favourite drink). Over time the ice cubes melt thus cooling the drink, but what is the best way to predict how cold your drink will be in the future? Clearly measuring the temperature directly will not do you much good because the temperature of the drink itself is not changing much while the ice cubes are still melting i.e. most of the energy is going into melting the ice, not warming the drink. There will not be much of a drink warming trend until the ice cubes have fully melted. Most of the additional energy from AGW is currently going into heating the oceans. The temperature of the oceans doesn't change much because water has a very high heat capacity so a lot of energy is needed to get a small amount of temperature rise. The rises we are seeing indicate a large energy increase, even though the absolute temperature has not risen much. If we only look at land temperatures and ignore the heat going into the ocean then we will have a very nasty surprise in the future once the oceans have warmed. Think what happens to your drink when the final ice cube melts... -
Camburn at 02:38 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
batsvensson@57: 1. Please verify your "the heavy use of pesticide which come with an agrictulre not aimed for food production". 2 Please do not ignore DDG. This is a superb byproduct of making ethanol. 3. As a farmer, the cost of fuel to my operation is tremendous. It affects each and every aspect of production. 4. At this time, there are no alternatives to diesel as a driver of horse power to achieve production goal. The days of easily accessable oil are becoming short. The main price impetus to oil is the rising standard of living through out the world. The price of oil will continue to go up as that standard continues to rise. This will affect not only food, but all products one uses to substain life as we know it. As a farmer, I can tell you that we don't use one ounce more of pesticide than we need to use. Economics dictates this. Oil is used mainly for production/transportain needs of the masses. Very little is used for electricity production. At present, there are no economic alternatives to oil. This will change, as the price of oil continues to rise, but it will come with a culture and economic shock as well. -
CBDunkerson at 02:20 AM on 12 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
'Skeptics' like Ken can't possibly argue that McLean's prediction was anything short of ridiculous... so instead he trots out nonsensical long disproven arguments about 'plateaus' and 'no warming since 1998' to derail the discussion. McLean was blatantly wrong. Just as every other 'skeptic' who has dared make a prediction has been. There is no way to argue with those facts... and no reason to respond to people attempting to distract from those facts with nonsense. If 'skeptics' cannot admit error even when their 'side' is shockingly ridiculously wrong (as in this case) there really is no point in discussing anything they have to say... they've demonstrated that they will do anything to avoid facing reality. -
batsvensson at 02:08 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
John Russel wrote: "There are many people who believe that the unrest in the Middle East since the beginning of last year was/is largely a response to rising food prices. This was certainly the cause of food riots in the Far east in 2007" I don't see the ethic in using crop land for fuel production when people still starve around the world. To add to this, the heavy use of pesticide which come with an agriculture not aimed for food production. We humans already put a lot of pressure on the wild life with our agriculture for food production and we do not need to put even more pressure on it for fuel production as other alternative exists which does not have such high impact on the environment. -
batsvensson at 01:59 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
JP40 wrote: "The only short-term solution I see to get us off oil is Helium-3. This gas isotope can power fusion reactors that actually work. a Ton of it could power a major city for several months. The only problem is that [...] " Those are not small technical challenging problems. So why not look at more realistic, cheaper solution, which are more readily available and technological both well understood and proven workable like fission? -
batsvensson at 01:52 AM on 12 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Agnostic wrote: "That claim is nonsense. The economy can and will grow if energy provided by oil can be replaced by energy produced from an alternative source at a competitive price." As a related curiosa fact, in Amsterdam over the past few years they been installing recharge points, tapping into the city power grid, along the streets where people lives and park their cars over night. They also been, and I assume the still are in progress of, replacing the old power grid network. So in a sense, preparation are made for the day no oil will be available anymore. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:28 AM on 12 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
10, Ken Lambert, "...looks like..."? What's that supposed to mean? More specifically, what specific arguments do you have to make against the validity of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)? No "looks like." The world doesn't want your off-the-cuff, rule-of-thumb, eyecrometer opinion of what it "looks like." Be specific. What is wrong with the methodology in Foster and Rahmstorf that would cause you to dismiss their result? -
muoncounter at 01:21 AM on 12 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Jim Eager#28: Norman's preposterous claim is that all water taken from the ground ends up in the ocean on the 8 year time frame of this post. This is an assumption on his part that has been shown to be false. And he has successfully distracted this thread with this utter red herring. -
Bernard J. at 01:06 AM on 12 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Oops. I should have refreshed and found Dikran Marsupial's much more succinct response to Ken Lambert, before spraying 20 questions over the board. -
Bernard J. at 01:03 AM on 12 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Well of course it should be. When you are on a plateau, the height sort of 'plateaus'.
Oh please, not this rusty old saw again. Ken Lambert, paraphrasing a question I repeatedly put to Girma Orssengo on the Matthew England thread at Deltoid, can you tell us what period of time is required to discern from the short-term noise in the global surface temperature record, a warming signal of, say, 1.0 C/century? What period of time would be required to discern a signal of 0.75 C/century, and what period of time would be required to discern a signal of, say, 1.25 C/century? Conversly, and importantly in the context of your fixation with periods of approximately a decade, what rate of temperature change would be required to discern a signal from noise over a period of ten years? What rate of temperature change would be required to discern a signal from noise over a period of five years, and what rate of temperature change would be required to discern a signal from noise over a period of fifteen years? Once you have derived the answers, can you comment on what their magnitudes imply for anyone who claims that there has been no warming for x-years, or that there has been cooling for y years, where x and y are values less than several decades? -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:25 AM on 12 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Ken Lambert, do you have statistically significant evidence that there has been a plateau (i.e. the apparent levelling off of temperatures is not likely to be merely an artifact of the noise)? How many times does it need to be said that temperature trends over roughly decadal timespans are not a reliable indication of what the climate system is actually doing. -
Ken Lambert at 23:53 PM on 11 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
dana1981 "Foster and Rahmstorf find it (2011) to be in the top 5 hottest years on record." Well of course it should be. When you are on a plateau, the height sort of 'plateaus'. Fig 3 shows that nothing much has happened since 1998 vis-a-vis surface temperature rise. " Tamino has provided an update to Foster and Rahmstorf to include the 2011 data. When the effects of ENSO and solar and volcanic activity are removed from the temperature data, 2011 is either the 2nd- or 5th-hottest year on record, depending on which data set we choose (Figure 2)." Why not remove the effects of solar and volcanoes from all temperature reconstructions back to the start of the Holocene? We might then find a more significant warming trend - but not the actual temperatures - and what would that prove. And ENSO effects are supposed to be internal to the system and not relevant to underlying trends. Why then 'remove' ENSO effects? Using Tamino's adjustments looks like a try hard to get a warming trend over the last 10-12 years by removing ENSO at least, and solar which is usually reported as small (isn't the solar 11 year cycle usually only about +/-0.13W/sq.m) against a purported warming imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m. -
Alexandre at 22:55 PM on 11 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
How come it did not turn out to be right? It seemed so plausible... -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:27 PM on 11 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Pierre-Normand & dana1981, I completely agree, however if the skeptic scientists made testable projections more often, we would resolve many of the points of discussion much more quickly (whether they stood by them or not)! -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:17 PM on 11 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
MangoChutney I very much doubt that Monckton would agree to ground rules that would make it a meaningful exercise (essentially the debate could still be spoiled by responding to every criticism with a gish gallop so that no point every got discussed in any depth). Sadly politicians have the wrong idea about the purpose of a debate (it shouldn't be about winning, it ought to be about establishing the truth; if the truth is on your side, you should win a rational debate anyway) and from experience are well versed in the required techniques. Any debate that is held ought to be structured as the discussion is at SkS, with each topic discussed in a single focussed thread and independently moderated to make sure that focuss was not lost; but Monckton would be mad to agree to that. I don't know if JC is intending to challenge Monckton, but personally I'd say there are much better uses of his time. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:08 PM on 11 February 2012Newcomers, Start Here
Sadly CBDunkerson is right. If someone really wants to avoid accepting any piece of science they can always use any uncertainty (and there always is some) as an excuse to say "this is all speculation". The response is simply to point out that the same is true of many other branches of science (e.g. plate tectonics, quantum physics, string theory) and ask them why it is that they accept say plate tectonics, but not anthropogenic climate change? Usually the response is to leave the scientific issues altogether and make an ad-hominem against the scientists needing their grant money*. At that point you both know that the issue has nothing to do with the science and there is no point in continuing the discussion. * Which is pretty laughable. Firstly climate science is not going to make any scientists rich, if money were the aim biotech would be a much better bet. Secondly the grant money goes on hiring research assistants, they don't get to keep it (other than a few conference trips etc). Thirdly the mindset of most scientists simply isn't like that, they do the work because it is interesting and they are interested in finding the truth, and love to point out when something is wrong (that is the way that most science progresses). Lastly there is nothing for them to gain by falsifying work, in the long run science is self correcting and they will be found out, and they will know that. -
OzJuggler at 22:05 PM on 11 February 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Steve McIntyre's brief response to caerbannog's argument is shown here on CA. It's possible he thought my quote was the entire argument, not just a portion of it. So I am still asking him questions about the importance of the small scale of the hockey sticks derived from noise, which I hope he will answer. -
CBDunkerson at 21:07 PM on 11 February 2012Newcomers, Start Here
The fact that people can say false things (e.g. "this is all speculation") doesn't change the reality of well documented scientific research. There have now been numerous scientific studies published, including one just last week... and they all, including the ones done by skeptics, show the same overall results with minor variations... despite using different proxies and methods of analysis. When all available evidence and analysis says one thing and the 'skeptics' are reduced to having nothing but, 'how can we really know anything?', there really isn't any need to respond. Just ask whether it makes more sense to go with the conclusion reached by every single scientific study on the matter or those whose entire position is that they do not (and can not) know anything. Until the false 'skeptics' come up with some alternate theory / data there is nothing there to 'respond' to. -
debunked at 20:22 PM on 11 February 2012Newcomers, Start Here
@CBDunkerson and @Dikran Marsupial: I understand what you guys are saying and accept it as well. It's hard to convince anybody without facts especially those who are more cynical than sceptical. What be the best site or source to read up on the proxy records on temperature data? I remember watching Attenborough interview where he said if fungi didn't exist, the world would collapse. The response someone made to that was 'this is all speculation'. I suspect they could say the say about proxy records. That's the sort of thing I want more clarity on. I mean, how do you respond to that?! -
MangoChutney at 18:57 PM on 11 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Anybody know if John Cook is going to challenge Monckton to a written debate? TIA -
dana1981 at 18:06 PM on 11 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Not likely keith :-) It was also clear in July that his prediction was wrong, and yet he stood behind it at that point as well. -
keithpickering at 17:24 PM on 11 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Dana, In fairness, we don't yet know whether McLean is still standing by his prediction or not. He says that his response will surprise us, so perhaps he will surprise us by admitting that he was wrong. -
Tom Curtis at 16:42 PM on 11 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman @33, from Siebert et al 2010 (linked by you):"While the rising importance of groundwater withdrawals in global freshwater supply is well established, there is still a large uncertainty on the volumes and spatial distribution of both groundwater recharge and withdrawals. Using a global hydrological model, mean annual direct groundwater recharge was estimated at 12,600 km3 yr−1 which is about one third of the total renewable freshwater resources (Doll, 2009). However, this global estimate explicitly ¨ excludes indirect recharge resulting from runoff events and transmission losses. These indirect recharge processes are dominant in semi-arid and arid countries where interior or coastal alluvial plains receive high volumes of runoff from surrounding mountain fronts (Scanlon et al., 2007). The Tihama and Batinah coastal plains in Yemen and Oman are prime examples. Total groundwater withdrawals are estimated to be in the range 600–1100 km3yr−1or between one fifth and one third of the total global freshwater withdrawals (Doll, 2009; Shah et al., 2007; Zektser and Everett, 2004)."
(Emphasis added) So your own source indicates that discharge of ground water is from half to equal recharge of groundwater. That would indicate that changes in total groundwater inventory globally is either reducing the sea level, or having no effect. Granted that these figures have a "large uncertainty", so it is entirely possible that the net effect is actually to increase Sea Level, but you have not presented relevant evidence to that effect. You have only seemed to do so by presenting half the story. Your comment that "much of this irrigation is in arid regions with slow recharge rates for the aquifers" is irrelevant as we are discussing global, not regional balances. Aquifers can store more water over time, as well as less. Indeed, if recharge exceeds discharge, which on the evidence of your source it probably does, some aquifers must be increasing their storage. -
owl905 at 16:31 PM on 11 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Add a skin to the trophy wall alongside Ricky Lintzen's 2004 NY Times statement that global warming stopped in 1998. For an encore, check Tony T. Watt's claim (somewhere around January 25th, 2011) that with Cycle 25 showing up as a whimper instead of a bang, 2022 would mark "The end of the Modern Warm Period." The tenants of Hothouse Earth are spending too much time distracted with how big the 'future fire' will or won't be. -
NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman - You are cherry-picking a single item from the article, and not considering the complete work. The conclusions you then draw from that practice are guaranteed to be incorrect. I strongly suggest that you look at Milly et al 2010 - Table 8.2, where they summarize all the data they present, not just single pieces, and from that conclude a net zero contribution. As well as Table 8.1, where they summarize the external constraints that limit any possible water use contribution to somewhere between 0.0 and 0.3 mm/yr, or a central value <1/20th observed sea level rise. Consider all the data. -
dana1981 at 16:25 PM on 11 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 1
Yes, we have seen Monckton's response and are in the process of preparing a response of our own. Keep an eye out for it next week. -
Tom Curtis at 16:24 PM on 11 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman @31, yes, but it will add to surface waters at a rate of 5.92 units* per annum, not 6.22. By not quoting the net change you are distorting the picture. How much you may be distorting the picture is shown if we see past your cherry picking of the aquifer with the worst ratio of recharge rates to pump rates from your source. Looking at all Texas aquifers, the 1995 pump rates were 9.16 units per annum, while the recharge rate was 3.92 units per annum, for a net difference of 5.24 units per annum discharged from aquifers to the surface. The relevant ratio is 2.34 to 1, compared to your cherry picked 21 to 1. The point here is not that the Texas total can be scaled to the global figures. It is far too small a sample for that. The point is that unless you provide the figures for both discharge and recharge of aquifers, which you have failed to do, then you cannot determine the net effect on global sea levels. Some of the water will also be retained as increased surface soil moisture, increased moisture content in vegetation and increased humidity in the area of irrigation, but I assume that that is trivial in comparison. But you cannot make the assumption of triviality with regard to recharge rates. Note that I do not know the recharge rates. Globally they may also be trivial. But you need to either cite them to establish that, or to cite a peer reviewed source to that effect. Finally, a cherry pick which shifts the determined ration by almost an order of magnitude (8.9:1) is particularly egregious, and demands some explanation and, IMO, apology. It may be OK to knowingly publish misleading information at WUWT, but it is not acceptable here. * units not given in source. -
dana1981 at 16:23 PM on 11 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Yes, making a testable prediction is laudable. However, continuing to stand behind that prediction when it is clearly wrong, not so much. -
Pierre-Normand at 16:13 PM on 11 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
McLean's methodology would satisfy Popper's criterion not just if he can derive testable predictions from it but also if he shows some proclivity, after some prediction was falsified, to discard the theory that his methodology rested upon. (One big weakness of Popper's framework, though, is that it's often unclear in particular cases if it might not be reasonable to cling to a theory that has yielded false predictions and rather revise some auxiliary hypothesis. This is a common occurrence in the history of science. But in the present case, it isn't obvious what mere auxiliary hypothesis could have thrown McLean off. It would be interesting to hear his explanation.)
Prev 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 Next
