Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 Next
Comments 64701 to 64750:
-
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.) -
Norman at 16:02 PM on 11 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
KR @25 From the article you linked to. "Gornitz (2001) compiled estimates of mining rates for specific countries from various sources; those explicitly reported rates totaled about 61 km3/year (or 0.17 mm/year sea-level rise) both for recent years and for the last half-century. Gornitz extrapolated that value by assuming that the ratio of mining to total groundwater withdrawal was similar globally to what it was in the studied regions. Depending on the details of the extrapolation, this approach led to a wide range of estimates of 0.17–0.77 mm/year for the gross effect of groundwater mining on sea-level rise." The problem is the report I linked to (which does not seem to work now) states the deep ground water use for irrigation is 545 cubic kilometers of water a year (and rising) Try it here again. Groundwater use in irrigation -a global inventory. In your link it states that 61 km^3 is equivalent to a 0.17 mm/year sea rise. If the more correct figure for the acutal global amount of deep water being used for irrigation is 545 km^3 (and much of this irrigation is in arid regions with slow recharge rates for the aquifiers which is described in the link), that comes out to 8.93 times more than 61. If 61 is responsible for a 0.17 mm sea level rise per year, 8.93 times this amount would be equal to a sea level rise of 1.52 mm/year. Multiply this by 7,for the GRACE study years that gave melting ice as responsible for 12 mm rise in sea level and the deep water withdrawal (with very slow recharge rates), and you have an equivalent of 10.63 mm of total sea level rise from pulling water from aquifiers. -
NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
muoncounter - The chapter from Milly et al 2010 notes that "water content of the global atmosphere (≈25 mm water equivalent) is tightly constrained thermodynamically", and therefore they consider the remaining water to either be on/in the land surfaces or in the ocean. Norman - My initial comment on this thread was in response to your mistaken statement that "...the water added to the system via irrigation is fairly close to the amount of water added by melting ice. Meaning the sea water will continue to rise regardless if the ice melting stops and the problems of the future will still remain." I believe I have referenced sufficient data to indicate that is incorrect - that our water usage (despite climate effects on local water availability) is not having any significant effect on SLR, that you are only looking at one side of the equation. Unless you have relevant comments and references indicating that Milly, Chao, and others, and their data, are somehow wrong, unless you can demonstrate that we have increased net flow to the oceans and hence affected SLR, I fail to see the point of chasing that particular red herring. And that includes external constraints on our net water flow - the contributions from thermal, haline, and ice melt to SLR severely limit the range of any additional anthro contribution. I believe the remainder of the discussion on aquifers versus physical impoundment versus redistribution of terrestrial water supplies is off topic in this thread. Perhaps you can take this to one of the discussions on climate change related droughts? -
PrezMulkeyUnity at 15:54 PM on 11 February 2012Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
I have been directly involved in the hockey stick war. I have been been an active research ecologist for over 20 years, and during the last 10 years I have focused on climate change and its effects on living systems. During part of my recent career, I was employed as science advisor to the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, a legislatively mandated commission. In March of 2007, while giving an invited report on climate change to a select committee of the Florida legislature, a conservative legislator rose from his seat and declared me to be a liar and demanded that I be dismissed. Indeed, I was asked to step from the podium. Only one newspaper in the state carried the story, and my employers did not so much as apologize for my treatment. Democracy in action, right? My sin? I had shown the hockey stick. When I approached the legislator who had objected, I discovered that he did not know that the National Academy and reviewed Michael Mann's work and found it to be fundamentally sound. Indeed, it was not apparent that he even knew of the existence of the US National Academy. After the climate gate emails were released, the prestigious journal Nature referred to the push back from the oil soaked Irrational Right as a "street fight." I could not agree more. I have carefully read and evaluated Mann's work and I find it to be of the highest standards of scientific integrity. He has been vindicated by numerous reviews. Despite continued harassment, he continues to find time to do excellent research. I have the greatest respect for him as a colleague and role model. To date 32 national academies have endorsed the fundamental reality of human caused climate change. Numerous professional organizations have also made clear statements to support the mainstream science. 97% of all climate scientists agree. NSF, NASA, NOAA, USDA, the NPS, and the CDC have active research programs predicated on the reality of human-caused climate change. The clarity of the climate change threat could not be greater. It is most sobering to realize that our present emissions trajectory will result in a global average warming of over 5 degrees C by 2100. Such a planet will not sustain civilization in any recognizable form. The excess CO2 that is pumped into the air today will affect our planet for thousands of years into the future. I am not an alarmist, but I am alarmed. You should be too. I urge everyone to read Mann's book. It is well written and compelling. Any publishing scientist who reads it will likely be chilled to the bone. I have contributed to the climate scientist legal defense fund, and urge all of you to do the same. http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/ Stephen Mulkey, PhD President, Unity College Unity, ME 04988 -
Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 1
And to continue that quote: "In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles." (emphasis added) And hence the use of model ensembles, each running a non-linear coupled system with slightly different initial conditions and modeling - marking out the probability distribution that we can expect from the climate. We can (in climate) make probabilistic predictions that it might (in average) be rainier or dryer in a particular region. But we'll never be able to predict exactly what the weather on a particular Tuesday a decade from now will be... Monckton's out of context quote is deceptive. And he's an experienced enough writer and speaker to understand that. -
Norman at 15:42 PM on 11 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Tom Curtis @26 The rate of replacement of underground water storage depends upon location. In wet areas the groundwater removed it easily replaced. In dry areas this is not the case and the drier areas are the ones pumping up most of the the deep ground water (that is not being replaced). In wet areas irrigation is not a highly needed activity. Here is a short article that describes the situation. In Texas a chart in this document Ogallala Aquifier. it shows the rate of pumping out of the large aquifier is 6.22, while the recharge rate is 0.3. The rate of pumping water out of the Ogallala is 21 times greater than the recharge rate. 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. -
Jim Eager at 15:20 PM on 11 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Bob, I didn't say anything at all about irrigation or sea level, I just pointed out that the nice neat divisions are not so nice and neat, as you just did as well. -
jmsully at 15:15 PM on 11 February 2012Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
Owl905, you forgot the Chinese sailing over the ice free north pole and discovering America (albeit a couple hundred years after the Vikings). -
IanC at 15:14 PM on 11 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 1
What also needs to be emphasized is that the quote regarding predictability is that the phrase is quoted out of context by Monckton from the IPCC TAR. The section this quote appears in section 14.2.2.2 Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensemblesIn sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
If the sentence after the quoted text is included, it completely changes the meaning of the text quoted by Monckton. Ever since Lorenz discovered chaos, it is recognized that we can't forecast climate the way we approach weather forecasting, and what we are after is the probability distribution of global surface temperature in Jun 2100, not the precise temperature. -
Jose_X at 14:19 PM on 11 February 2012Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 1
Fitz1309, the original context should have been preserved but wasn't. For example, the first reply is Monckton literally pointing out how the IPCC says that (long-term) prediction is impossible. He is correct. The IPCC also says that while we cannot know with 100% certainty, we can manage how much confidence we have with various predictions. So Monckton pointed out an obvious point implied already in current climate papers and the majority of scientific work (managing levels of confidence and error). Monckton's failure was in suggesting that this lack of 100% certainty means we have almost no clue. Now, Monckton never said the we have no clue, but his speech was such to possibly create the impression in the minds of many. Unless you want to get into a silly war of semantics, it's best simply to ask Monckton to clarify his position. Does he believe, as his speech sounded to "me", that the IPCC does not make a projection/prediction of x or y with fairly high certainty. Getting angry doesn't help. The goal is for people to understand. If they feel they misunderstood Monckton, some will over time simply learn not to trust Monckton without first getting clarification and may get used to waiting for the summary version by others who do chase down the details. They may even start seeing Monckton as a clever speaker whose words suggest one thing different than what he will put on paper with his signature. -
Steve L at 13:14 PM on 11 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
DM @ 132 -- Thanks. It's all about finding the time. Probably I spend too much time reading and commenting to do much learning of how to actually do (& therefore better understand) stuff. I'll endeavor to re-prioritize; I suspect there are many of us who would benefit from this effort. Thanks again for your good example. -
Bob Loblaw at 12:33 PM on 11 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
RobertS @ :for some unobservable, unverifiable parameter like "slope" under the assumption that your straight line model is correct (and several other similar comments) You keep putting terms like "slope", "average", etc. in scare quotes, as if they have no meaning. You seem unwilling to agree that such an entity can be a property of the underlying process itself, rather than the analysis of the data. Let's look at calculus. Let's take the function Y=x^2. Not linear. Yet calculus says that we can calculate the slope at any value of X by taking the derivative of Y with respect to X. Numerical methods also tell us that we can get a pretty close approximation to that slope by taking pairs of (X,Y) values close to that point and calculating the slope of the linear segment between the points. Is that slope a property of the function Y=X^2, or a property of the analysis? Can the results of the analysis tell us anything about the function? Can you give a straight answer without resorting to an argument that tries to pretend that words don't mean anything? -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:30 PM on 11 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
EliRabett, Thanks for the example. Are observations are uniformly spaced? I assume that daily or seasonal cycles are already averaged out in some way? I don't think those are difficult problems but the methods can sometimes be controversial. Once the cycles are removed is there any other role for spectral analysis? Are there any a priori statistical tests for the residuals or trends in the residuals? By what method are nonlinear trends in the residuals measured? How do we know that we have sufficient data for that method? -
Bob Loblaw at 12:17 PM on 11 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
and, Jim, some won't. Some will fall on land. And some of that will run off into streams and eventually reach the sea, and some will soak into the soil, and some will eventually make back into deep aquifers... ...so you can't look at this by pretending that one small portion of the water cycle is everything. Taking the number that represents the removal for irrigation and expecting that it all ends up raising sea level is wrong. -
Jim Eager at 12:03 PM on 11 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
But muoncounter, what goes up by evaporation comes down as precipitation, and depending on the location, some of that will end up in the ocean. -
muoncounter at 11:55 AM on 11 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman#24: "water is being added to the surface system. Some will be impounded, some will end in the sea." And some will end in the atmosphere. Per the USGS, ... of the water used for irrigation, only about one-half is reusable. The rest is lost by evaporation into the air, evapotranspiration from plants, or is lost in transit, by a leaking pipe, for example. Sounds like there is a high level of uncertainty in the fraction of groundwater that reaches the ocean. You neglect, as well, the fact that groundwater depletion is a major factor in land subsidence, exacerbating coastal sea level rise. This is an argument so thin as to be transparent. -
scaddenp at 11:48 AM on 11 February 2012Newcomers, Start Here
"only have data running back to a 100 years" This is highly inaccurate. We only have instrumental data going back a little over 100 years but we have data in various forms covering millions of years. This also seeks to avoid the issue that climate theory is based on physics and validated daily in countless data sets. Do we not send a rocket to Mars because we only have data on gravity going back 200 years?
Prev 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 Next
