Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 Next
Comments 65851 to 65900:
-
muoncounter at 12:40 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics#44 Your friend has chosen a single sentence out of the 'Executive Summary' of Chapter 6 of the 2001 TAR, which is somewhat out of date. This hardly constitutes thorough scientific research. I suggest you review the following pages of Chapter 6 on Radiative Forcing, where the research is thoroughly discussed. Or consider Chapter 2 section 2.2 of the AR4 report of 2007: The concept [of radiative forcing] arose from early studies of the climate response to changes in solar insolation and CO2, using simple radiative-convective models. However, it has proven to be particularly applicable for the assessment of the climate impact of LLGHGs. -- emphasis added These foundational questions should make it clear to you that you should do a significant amount of reading before summarily deciding that climate science is circular, non-falsifiable or similarly flawed. -
patonomics at 12:38 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
What are laws of nature? What does it mean to say that one thing caused another? It is natural to suppose: that these observations provide a neutral testing-ground for competing theories; that they can reveal how theories should be modified, and that they could tell us which theory is true. . . . .that the situation is not as clear-cut as it might appear. http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/component/courses/?view=course&cid=4133 -
patonomics at 12:27 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Philippe Chantreau#45: Respected moderator deleted the part I put for you in #36, so I put a brief fraction in #38 May I personally recommend you to read the following 2 books when you get time, it might surprise you (it does to me at least in 2011) 1. What Is This Thing Called Science? - by Alan F. Chalmers 2. Science, Common Sense and Scepticism - by Alan Musgrave -
Bernard J. at 12:23 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Tom Dayton at #1. That is indeed a worrying recount. What that radio exercise shows is how a pseudoscientifically-influenced teen resists understanding proper science when it is explained to her, rather than how the science is, in and of itself, unconvincing. Sadly, many in the audience would not understand the very significant difference between the two situations. Of course, knowing that youth conditioned to denialism are not receptive to rational explanation is a useful thing, so it's not a completely wasted exercise. However, what it tells us is that a better forum than a radio stunt is required for delivery of real science to ideologically-indoctrinated denialist kids. It doesn't tell us that there is any problem with the science itself, no matter how much that will be the impression left in the minds of many who listened. I hope that the efforts of the National Center for Science Education go a long way to reversing this fundamentalist conservative resistance to rationalism. -
patonomics at 12:18 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Philippe Chantreau#45: I respect your communication. I completely understand your statement - "And I will not agree to disagree with you in the sense implying that we hold different, equally valid opinions. There is a right answer." . . . . . We just could not agree together. - but I respect you. Thank you very much for your clear communication so far. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:59 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Patonomics I read your link from the University of Cambrige and I do not see at all how it supports the idea of a hierarchy between hypothesis, law and theory. I also read your link to the Guardian article and I see nothing showing that U. of Cambridge claims to be number one. The Guardian article ranks it as number one. I did not spend enough time on it to see what were their criteria. I'm sure if the N.Y. Times was doing a ranking of best Physics Universities in the World, they would come up with something different. It seems you are now trying to go to a hierarchy of universities so as to establish that what comes out of one is "better" than what comes out of another. I'll add that one of my links about the vanity of a hierarchy of concepts came from Berkeley, ranking #5 in the Guardian list. And I will not agree to disagree with you in the sense implying that we hold different, equally valid opinions. There is a right answer. A hierarchy of certainty for vastly different concepts has no merit. This is drifting far off the topic of this thread, however, and I will not pursue it any longer. -
Bert from Eltham at 11:56 AM on 23 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I am so dismayed at this duplicity that I deleted some dollars from my vast wealth and made a donation to SkS. I urge anyone who thinks that the great unpaid work they are doing is worthwhile to do the same. Remember it may not be much individually but together it becomes a torrent. However pointless it is for the occupants to bicker over the direction of a crashing vehicle I like many have nowhere else to go when it is our planet Earth. Bert -
patonomics at 11:52 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
muoncounter#42: My close friend shared with me the following reference, please guide me shall we understand Physics/Physical Science (yes NOT engineering) with assumption alone? "The practical appeal of the radiative forcing concept is due, in the main, to the assumption that there exists a general relationship between the global mean forcing and the global mean equilibrium surface temperature response (i.e., the global mean climate sensitivity parameter, λ) which is similar for all the different types of forcings." Source - http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.PDF -
John Hartz at 11:49 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics: The twelve part series, “Atmospheric Radiation and the ‘Greenhouse’ Effect” posted on The Science of Doom website, would be a good place for you to start in your quest for the penultimate general equation of climate change. -
muoncounter at 11:36 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics#41: There is nothing circular about calculating a temperature anomaly from changes in forcing. Perhaps you need to look into these concepts and the relevant evidence. Your volcano/earthquake question is irrelevant. We understand the atmospheric effects and account for them. Are you now claiming that earth science is invalid because it is not described by an equation? This is physics, not engineering. -
patonomics at 11:30 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
muoncounter#39: about "quantitatively deterministic" support by your source is using "circularity" logic of theory as mentioned in #38, and not cause effect or "clear quantification equation" that other can verify of cause and effect, as you might like to claim Please refer #37 and here I like to ask - do you agree with the following statement? "You cannot write an equation for the totality of a volcanic eruption, with magma, tephra fall, gas released, pyroclastic flows, landslides, lahars, earthquakes and the rest" -
patonomics at 11:14 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
To respond to #37 @skywatcher . . . . . "Not all science works by deriving individual equations or laws." . . . . . & . . . . ."The challenge for those doubting the validity of climate science is to find a way that the overarching (how) physics works, yet somehow does not apply to our atmosphere, where it has been observed to work" . . . Both claims above is a real eye opener for me. I have NO questions to you anymore! -
muoncounter at 11:13 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics#36: "claims human generated CO2 as deterministic reason ... for surface temperature rise of earth, it should be quantitatively deterministic." It largely is. We can see what the forcing factors are and calculate temperature changes that result. There are many posts here explaining all the intricate details behind these calculations.
-- source
The figure shows clearly that we cannot account for current warming without anthropogenic factors (GHGs).
Climate scientists are not unaware of the requirements of science in general and physics in particular. One should be very careful not to assume that everyone working in the field is wrong. That happens rarely - once every few generations at most.
There is much to learn about climate science theory and observations available here at SkS, if you care to invest the necessary time - and if you have an open mind.
-
tmac57 at 10:55 AM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Eugenie Scott was recently featured on 4 of the podcasts that I regularly listen to, discussing the NCSE's new project.These podcasts are all done by real Skeptic organizations,not the fake ones: The Skeptics Guide to the Universe episode #340 http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ Rationally Speaking RS49 http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs49-eugenie-c-scott-on-denialism-of-climate-change-and-evol.html Skeptically Speaking #147 http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episodes/147-science-and-politics Point of Inquiry http://www.pointofinquiry.org/eugenie_scott_defending_climate_education/ -
patonomics at 10:48 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
To Respond #34 @Philippe Chantreau: The (-snip-) part by moderators at #36 , I am linking only a part of Philosophy of Science What Is Science? & . . . . . . Karl Popper rejected empirical proof as the ideal of scientific knowledge, arguing that a genuine attempt to falsify one's own theories was the hallmark of the critical attitude essential to science. . . . Theory and Evidence . . . . . The theory-ladenness of observation creates a threat of circularity in the confirmation relation. The presence of auxiliary assumptions blunt the force of any confirmation or refutation that an observation may have on a theory. . . . . . -
actually thoughtful at 10:36 AM on 23 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #3
From your perspective, how well does SkS communicate what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming? /Does one have to be a climate science wonk in order to comprehend the majority of articles posted on SkS? Very well/No Does the three-tiered rebuttal system serve a useful purpose? Hmm. I like it in that usually all I need is the basic and the intermediate usually meets my wonkish needs. I have occasionally used the advanced when someone pulls the science card on me. But at that moment I am probably in trouble when they respond "yeah, but". This is probably my limitation, and not the format. How could SkS better communicate information to the average person who has only a rudimentary understanding of climate science? I think the recent focus on the multiple lines of evidence is very helpful. A few more powerful analogies between things we don't know everything about and climate change (which we also don't know everything about) - ie against the myth that we don't know everything so we can't do anything. It seems the basis for much of the resistance amongst skeptics is the idea that we will "trash the economy over poorly understood, convenient lies from the left". So an expansion of the "It is (much) cheaper to avoid this problem than to somehow solve it after the fact" line of articles is probably a very useful avenue to pursue. I look forward to the results from BC and California, but surely there are things to say before we get all the data from that. Also, the term mitigation is always one that I think could be used before or AFTER an event, so not using that term might make the material more approachable (and it might be my mental block on the word mitigation). -
Tom Dayton at 10:20 AM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Another organization that tries to educate about climate change is the U.S 's National Earth Sciences Teachers Association. Their executive director Dr. Roberta Johnson yesterday was on NPR radio's This American Life in episode 424, Kid Politics, Act Two. Host Ira Glass had her in one studio and a young teenager in another studio. He had the Dr. give her best arguments and the teenager respond with how convincing it was. The teen was thoroughly unconvinced. The teen's bottom line was that she might be convinced if she saw both sides of the argument laid out side by side. Hey! That's what Skeptical Science does! Will somebody please tweet or comment on Facebook to that radio program? I don't tweet and I rarely Facebook. Also it would be good for somebody to ensure the Dr. knows that SkS provides what the teen was asking for. -
skywatcher at 10:18 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics, it seems you asked something quite unreasonable in reality. Reality is a lot more complex than a physical model of reality (google "spherical chicken" or "spherical cow"), yet some consequences of complex interactions are adequately modelled by simplifications, and other consequences are not dependant on the details of the complexity. You cannot write an equation for the totality of a volcanic eruption, with magma, tephra fall, gas released, pyroclastic flows, landslides, lahars, earthquakes and the rest. But you would not expect a single equation for such a complex process, yet it would be utterly naive to suggest we have no idea of how volcanoes work, or their environmental and even climatic impacts. Not all science works by deriving individual equations or laws. Why not look at the following thread: Ten indicators of a human fingerprint on climate and see if you can find a reason why these indicators are not valid. See if you can find fundamental reasons why Richard Alley's AGU presentation on CO2 as the key 'control knob' on climate is fundamentally flawed. The physics of human-caused global warming and more broadly of the greenhouse effect is not a theory on its own, but a consequence of the theories governing atmospheric physics, and absorption/emission of radiation by materials at specific wavelengths See Spencer Weart's excellent history of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Without these theories, most of astronomy and astrophysics, dependant on understanding stellar chemistry based on the absorption and emission of radiation by gases at specific wavelengths would not work. Heat-seeking missiles would miss - their development is inextricably tied to our understanding of the greenhouse effect). A myriad of other modern technologies do not work if you disregard the principles behind the greenhouse effect. But not everything that "works" has a single meaningful equation that describes its operation. The challenge for those doubting the validity of climate science is to find a way that the overarching physics works, yet somehow does not apply to our atmosphere, where it has been observed to work. -
patonomics at 09:40 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
I must humbly acknowledge all responses and offer personal respect to each individual (in favor and against my views as critics) individually for your kindness so far. I think I am blessed. Here I will record some of clarification which will give clarity about my views further. To respond respected Moderator’s Response at #29 : I 100% agree with you “Grain silos are not good models of the Earth's climate system.” And I never claimed that, if you read between the lines in #29. The central point to mention there was “Grain silos are simplistic and manageable and completely observable and verifiable case if one compare with climate science. And even with today’s critical skills in modeling and with super computers, still it create lots of error. Climate science is with multitude of variables and much more complex. So when simple case (Grail silos) is NOT accurate what to expect predictions accuracies in complicated science of Climate”. To respond #30 @Tom Curtis: The case I have referred is part of scientific analysis with temperature in Centigrade, and I have NOT discussed this as Scientific Jugglery, so please please give attention about what they (researchers) said and done and measured temperature in Centigrade only NOT in Kelvin, also “in that particular case” science of seed/grain has no need to be referred with base of Temperature Kelvin 0, so please stop distorting the facts. I know most of the participants in this forum are serious and they do understand you are trying to distort the facts. To respond #31 @muoncounter: I definitely agree with you is lot of laws to explain something in physics. My submission is: if someone in this earth, claims human generated CO2 as deterministic reason (or most likely, and cannot be unlikely) for surface temperature rise of earth, it should be quantitatively deterministic. “So the claim such claim” temperature can be expected (if it’s NOT too much expectation form a lifelong student of science) to ask for deterministically defined in an equation along with many other variables which have positive and/or negative impact on surface temperature variations in this earth. To respond #32 @Glenn Tambly: in the following general equation f (X1, X2, X3, . . . . . Xn) is neither simplistic nor complicated, its general equation, and capable to be actually derived as simple or as complicated once wants to make it. So the general equation is left to one who wants to make it deterministic with respect to all integrated knowledge of co2 generation from all known sources, from land, sea, other water bodies, all animals (including amebas to humans), and all plants, and ALL other variables in climate that one claims to vary the temperature T(temp at time t) = f (X1, X2, X3, . . . . . Xn)* + c, * Where X1, X2, . . . . , Xn are variables, and they may very well be multidimensional To Respond #34 @Philippe Chantreau: I respect you as a person that you are doing your best to respond. I need to clarify I have no connection with “University of Waikato” what so ever, I just googled for and I get references and just refer it to make my point. Here I have again googled for World’s top university in Physics and now will be using some reference from University of Cambridge (that claims to be number 1 University in Physics)” which may not be offensive to you (I can just hope with a positive mind). I respect your views and you any way, and still we both can agree to disagree with our own individual perceptions. I hereby submit to you, please see the following, if you will like to agree or disagree with information, I agree with. (-snip-) To respond #35 @ Rob Painting: refer my response to #34 that I have no relation or connection to “University of Waikato”, I have just googled to find references from a University, to make my point. And I do respect you and your views, even when I have possess an individual mind, to agree or disagree with some science. I claim that I do not have “A sheep's herd mentality” – I own a mind of my own, and can validate facts when logically presented and stand alone with my own judgments or change my judgment, even when whole world is against me. So please keep your personal attack mentality for responding to someone. You can neither heart me nor make me happy.Response:[DB] Long off-topic segments snipped.
-
skywatcher at 09:24 AM on 23 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
skeptikal #25, you'll find people here are entirely welcoming to enquiring minds, but tend to react sensitiviely to those parroting tired old myths such as the claim that we only think it's happening because of models. In reality our understanding is based on a wealth of direct empirical evidence of a human fingerprint on the global warming signal - note particularly the reduction in heat escaping to space and more heat returning to Earth at GHG-specific wavelengths. This evidence is right in line with over a century of predictions based on the physical properties of CO2, and right in line with a wealth of palaeoclimatic evidence demonstrating that CO2 is the biggest control knob on climate (I'd hugely recommend watching this Richard Alley presentation - the speaker is perhaps the Republican most worth listening to in the world!). As others have said, data adjustment, which you put such a negative spin on, happens necessarily all the time. It is not done arbitrarily, and is always documented and justified. It is crucial to extract meaningful information from indirect sources, be they thermometers, sea floor sediments, or electromagnetic radiation; it is also crucial if you want to bring together multiple data sources, say thermometers at different elevations and so on, if you want a meaningful combined record. Genuine scepticism is a valued trait (every good scientist is fiercely sceptical of both their own work and others, however good the work is), but please provide evidence for your sceptical views on climate. Be sceptical not only of information that is in conflict with your worldview, but also be sceptical of information that agrees with your worldview. -
EliRabett at 08:04 AM on 23 January 2012The role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming
The oxidation of methane occurs mostly in the troposphere with a lifetime of ~ 5 years. However, this is not complete, and some leaks into the stratosphere. Methane in the stratosphere is the source of much of the water vapor there, since little can get through the cold trap at the tropopause. It is correct to say that methane oxidation in the stratosphere is the source of the additional water vapor there. It is not correct to say that methane oxidation occurs mostly in the stratosphere -
JMurphy at 07:12 AM on 23 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
Very good, informative and easy-to-understand article. Thanks. -
Rob Painting at 06:47 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Earth sciences taught at the University of Waikato is appalling. My youngest son just finished at Waikato (not studying Earth sciences though) and was flabbergasted at the fake-skeptic nonsense Earth sciences students were mouthing. So if Patonomics is going there I fully understand his confusion on climate science. Earth sciences at Otago or Victoria University are of a far higher standard. -
John Hartz at 06:43 AM on 23 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
The Op-Ed that pbjamm referred to is: “The verdict is in on climate change” by Naomi Oreskes published by the LA Time on January 22, 2012. The sub-title of Oreskes throught provoking article is: “When it comes to climate change, open-mindedness is the wrong approach.” -
actually thoughtful at 06:26 AM on 23 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
KR - on the issue of whether sites will hold themselves to the standards they "set" for SkS - I can answer that the site called Wattsupwiththat (WUWT) will - Here is what WUWT says about SkS (the only site WUWT holds out for special treatment): "(unreliable) due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting." Other than my post at 58 I know nothing about (2). But I can tell you that yesterday, on WUWT moderator amending my comments (by deleting harmless links to SkS) - I say harmless because it didn't involve any controversy, just answering another posters claims with an appeal to the facts (handily categorized here at SkS). I then responded by asking the moderator to allow a debate on the science to occur. Deleting request to allow science on WUWT I don't know what "extension" means -but the moderators did comment (inside my post) - which might be what extension means. So yes, a double standard is now documented. I doubt there is much surprise. I implore SkS to give us a site that is above this type of tit-for-tat - transparency, transparency, transparency! Beyond the borehole type concept KR mentions, I think serious consideration needs to be given to an archive for update/erroneous articles - this could have all kind of labeling that marks it as old/out of circulation/errant/wrong etc. - but transparency means you can see how things looked. And yes - our mistakes will be there for the world to see - even after we fix them. And any serious, credible person will put SkS up another 2 or 3 notches in respect for having the balls to do it. I note that *doing it right* always takes more effort than doing the minimum acceptable. I hereby offer some of my time to help in the *do it right* effort. As always, I sincerely appreciate all the behind the scenes work, and benefit from the end results. -
John Mason at 05:56 AM on 23 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Wili, The goose has been in the oven for sometime already! Hence my parting statement, which I think you will tend to find in most articles on this subject. WRT your question: lots of possibilities to read into this statement still. 50 Gt over what time period? A year? Ten years? Ten hours? Is there enough methane present for it all to come out in one place or, as I suspect, and alluded to in the article, is not a more likely scenario one in which an increase in outgassing via multiple pathways occurs over an extensive area? We don't know. Detection would depend on synoptic patterns at the time, which would control boundary-layer windfields in terms of direction, fetch and speed. An alternative might occur if a 5-15% methane-air mix was generated: enough of that and any ignition-source would provide something more likely to be picked-up on seismographs.... However, one could speculate until the cows come home and such topics are likely better for discussion over a pint or two of beer! Other questions likewise abound: thus I'm looking forward to examining the next data-release and in due course the results from further fieldwork. I am sure we will be returning to this topic again and again in the coming years. But for now, I would caution that is very tempting to jump to conclusions WRT Arctic methane, but in doing so without strong evidence, one is diverging from science, which is something I'd prefer to leave to politicians! -
funglestrumpet at 05:43 AM on 23 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
barry @ 13:08pm (comment numbers all at '1' at time of writing) I would support your point if the articles showed any sign whatsoever of becoming typical of GreenPeace output. However, I see no harm in tub thumping in the comments section, if only because it is likely to be read by persons such as myself, who come here for accurate information on the topic and quite possibly feel as I do that there are overwhelming forces with a vested interest in keeping b.a.u. At least it sure feels that way. I for one will feel it all worthwhile if, say, my suggestion that the opening ceremony of the Olympics by subject to protest by the younger generation who are going to be subject to major effects of climate change, gets taken up by some activist group or other. Heaven knows, can it really be argued that simply proving people like Monckton wrong is a success? Lets face it, he doesn't seem to have changed his script, does he? He even gets introduced to Congress as one of the world's leading climate science experts! Perhaps SKS needs a 'paramilitary' wing! (I joke - with Shakespeare's 'many a true word ...' in mind.)Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Further comments on 'tub thumping' are off topic for this thread. Use 'The Big Picture' thread for general comments about advocacy. If you have more specific advocacy issues, find the appropriate thread. -
wili at 05:27 AM on 23 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Thanks for the clarification, John. I get the sense that by the time we have a really good idea of what is going on, our goose will already be pretty well cooked. I wonder if you could clarify something else. If there was a major one-time eruption of methane, of the sort Shakhova discussed (~50 Gt iirc), how long would it take a land-based monitoring station a thousand or so miles away to detect it? -
Chris G at 05:15 AM on 23 January 20122011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
Re: John (#11) If the ocean retains relatively more energy (heat) during a La Nina relative to an El Nino, I suppose this means we can expect more verbiage about "missing heat" in 2012. It'll be an easy cherry pick to show a lack of temperature increase in the atmosphere while ignoring the temperature increase of the oceans, in the totality that we can measure, rather than just whatever layer happens to fit the preconceptions. Re: Tom (#21) Thanks for that reference. I have had heard, in the past, and had trouble accepting, that the human signal (GHG) only started about 1950. I always figured it was there, just hard to detect. And then there is the bit of, feedbacks aside, a constant increase of GHGs would produce a logarithmic (decreasing slope) curve, but an increasing rate of growth of GHGs should produce an increasing slope curve. If you add them together, does the result have a positive or negative second derivative? Anyway, that reference clears a few things for me. -
Tom Curtis at 04:47 AM on 23 January 2012Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Waldo @46, Monckton made a similar effort against Australia's Carbon Tax which was demolished in analysis, but unfortunately I cannot lay my hands on the analysis at present. Looking briefly over his Canadian effort I have already detected one error in which he under estimates the temperature effect by a factor of 14, even granting his numbers for change in CO2 concentration (which I have not checked). If you want good information on the Canadian Scheme, probably this is your best bet. It claims a 1.5 billion dollar net current benefit assuming a 3% discount rate; which compares to Monckton's claim of a net 6.4 Billion dollar cost. Given that the gross cost is estimated at $8.2 Billion, with a benefit of $6.7 Billion dollar Gross benefit excluding the benefits from reduced greenhouse emissions, Monckton's claim is unlikely to stand up to analysis. -
Waldo at 03:56 AM on 23 January 2012Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Hello! I have been reading this site for some time and decided to ask the opinion of the commentators here on Monckton's "Regulation Without Reason" http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/monckton/canada-coal-2011.pdf I've found that it has one obvious problem in that it purposefully excludes the co-benefits of the regulations being assailed. The math appears fuzzy as well but I'm not a math wiz so I was hoping to get some insight into that portion of it. Thank you! -
pbjamm at 03:54 AM on 23 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
michael sweet@24 The comments section of that Op-Ed is one of the saddest things I have ever read. There is a desperate need for some actual facts over there, but I doubt that the commenters are interested anything but talking points. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:34 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Patonomics your repeating of the same sentence as if it was a mantra does not flatter others' perceptions of your intrinsic ability to reason on your own. The U. of Waikato's language is overly simplified and erroneously compares level of certainty of concepts that can not be put on the same scale. It is inadequate and misleads the readers into thinking that there is a hierarchy where there isn't one. Thinking critically involves scrutiny of even the sources that teach us to think. Are you always going to recite the same mantra from U.Wai? -
Bob Lacatena at 03:18 AM on 23 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
Kate, I've been a bit overwhelmed with work, so I didn't get to see this post before you put it up, but when you mention that grid cells are often 100 km wide, which seems large, you might also point out that the surface of the earth is 510,072,000 km2. A 100 km cube/wedge will have a contact surface area of of 10,000 km2. This means (not accounting exactly for the spherical shape of the earth, and how the wedges change in dimensions as one approaches the poles) that you have somewhere around 51,000 cubes in your surface grid alone!!! And then you need to multiply that by the number of levels in your atmospheric representation! So while 100 km may seem "huge" to a small, lonely, self-centered person (or any other sort of person), when one is talking about a global climate model... not so much. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:10 AM on 23 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
Skeptikal, the fact that you bought into the myth that scientists were predicting an ice-age in the 70s clearly indicate that you are lacking on the skepticism front. Yet you adorn yourself with that screen name. What did you expect? There is no shortage of ways for you to prove that you are not a fake, if you truly are not one. -
les at 02:45 AM on 23 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
I think the comment in 26 should be appended to the comments policy or displayed in the user registration page... -
Tom Dayton at 02:36 AM on 23 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
skeptikal, you will find that the tones and assumptions you make in your comments tend to get reflected in the tones of the responses. Re-read your original comment for its tone and assumptions, then re-read the immediate responses to that comment for their tones. Then re-read your subsequent comment for its improved tone and assumptions, and note the consequent improvement in the tones of the responses. It is typical for commenters new to Skeptical Science to adopt a combative, assumptive, and scattershot approach that is typical on other sites that have looser commenting policies. The typical result is what you experienced initially. It is also not unusual for such commenters to finally read the comments policy carefully, including the requirement to stick narrowly to the topic of the particular post you are commenting on, and to use the Arguments list (hover over the Arguments link in the horizontal bar at the top of the page to see alternative presentations), and the Search function to find the appropriate thread, read that original post first, and only then comment. Especially helpful is to click on the Newcomers and Big Picture buttons at the top of the home page and follow the suggestions there. When commenters then adapt their approach accordingly, they have a much improved experience. I believe "Eric (skeptic)" had that experience; he seems to enjoy most of his interactions here and his contributions are appreciated by other commenters, authors, and moderators despite his definite planting of at least one foot in the skeptic camp. (Caveat: He seems to be more of a true skeptic than a denier, which is a big help.) Eric should correct me if I have misrepresented his experience. -
skeptikal at 02:08 AM on 23 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
Tom Dayton & muoncounter, thanks for taking me seriously. Tom, there's quite a lot of links on Tamino's Climate Data Links page you gave me. Should keep me busy for a while. muoncounter, thanks for encouraging me to read the SkS posts that explicitly address my need to be convinced, but I've already been labelled a fake and don't feel all that comfortable here. Does anyone know what I have to do to cancel my membership? -
prokaryotes at 00:28 AM on 23 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
How does the methane and nitrous oxide from permafrost thaw and denitrification, affect the ozone layer? "At low latitudes, methane in the stratosphere breaks down into hydrogen oxides, which attack ozone. Nitrous oxide can decompose to form ozone-eating nitrogen oxides. " http://discovermagazine.com/2002/nov/breakozone/ Last year they found a ozone hole at the north pole, at the size of the south pole ozone hole. -
michael sweet at 23:26 PM on 22 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
Naomi Oreskes has an interesting Op-Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. She likens Climate Science to a trial and the scientists to the jury. The first two comments were deniers. -
John Mason at 23:19 PM on 22 January 2012Arctic methane outgassing on the E Siberian Shelf part 2 - an interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova
Wili, In response to your first question, clearly the methane is being released as a feedback to warming. What I was careful NOT to say was to which bit of the warming: that resultant from the Holocene transgression or that heaped upon it by Mankind. At the moment, we don't know, as Shakhove herself says: the point is we need to evaluate the situation further. How one goes about determining whether the post-1980s abrupt seawater warming reported by Dmintrenko et al is causing this effect I don't know, but I would hazard a guess that should the rate of methane emissions in the coming years be found to be increasing in tune with this extra warming then we should have a pretty good idea, likewise with the ARS data you refer to. -
michael sweet at 22:57 PM on 22 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Patanomics, the equation you seek is called a climate model. See the climate model thread which starts with a simple equation just like you asked for! -
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:31 PM on 22 January 20122011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
AT #1 Possibly missing several things. Between 1910 and 1955 the worlds temperature record was in flux. Initially stations were being added to the Arctic. Then much latter stations were added to the Antarctic. So the temperature record has some significant possible distortions during that period. Also the SST record was distorted due to a discontinuity caused by a shift in the proportion nof nUS vs UK ships involved in SST measurement during the War Years. So one cannot assume that the 1910/40 curve is really the result of an early warming pattern, rather than simply a result of othet factors not well analysed. And without that curve, the longer term pattern has a different meaning. -
jyyh at 21:22 PM on 22 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
As this is a basic article on how climate models work, I'm not sure if my question is on the right place. The last figure shows the observed ice loss vs. the IPCC projection, do you know how much energy this extra melt has taken? I'd imagine it's out of the other parts of the earth system, so a slight overestimate of temperatures could be seen elsewhere in the models. I guess what I mean to ask is, has the heat transport from the tropics to polar areas speeded up, and how could this be measured? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:16 PM on 22 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patanomics. Not wanting to seem to dump on you, but the idea of a few equations that encapsulate what you are looking for is rather simplistic. The function you are looking for probably has lot more aspects than that, including complex time domain relations. Why do you expect such eqns? Surely the appropriate approach it to take the findings from a wide range of scientific disciplines and combine th0em together. Rather than look for a simple set of eqns. -
Jenpalex at 19:00 PM on 22 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
Does your model predict the slowdown in temperature increase since 1998? Does it have the property of even 'accurate' regression models of increasing forecasting error as fufure forecasting distance increases? By what criteria do you judge the forecasting accuracy of your model?Moderator Response: Your questions are misplaced on this thread, because the original post is a basic explanation of how climate models work. Your question belongs on the thread "Models are Unreliable," which you can find by entering that phrase in the Search field at the top left of this page. But read the original post on that appropriate thread before posting your questions, because your questions already are answered there. -
Alex C at 16:16 PM on 22 January 20122011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
Chris G @23: True, if you assume continuity along the horizontal axis (which, regarding time, makes physical sense, but the data is not presented as a function of a continuous variable). You could of course align any mean with any fractional abscissa, but cosmetically (to use your word) it would make more sense to have an X-year centered running mean actually centered on a year, and not a piece of a year (or, month, and not a piece of a month). -
Chris G at 15:10 PM on 22 January 20122011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
Alex, Hmm, I'm not aware of any difficulty calculating the mean of an even number of points or any requirement that the endpoints of the running mean has to align perfectly with endpoints of the periods of the base measurement. Time can be considered a continuous variable; the middle of a month exists as surely as the start or end. In minutes, X Y 00:01:00 1 00:02:00 2 00:03:00 3 00:04:00 4 If you are calculating the mean of these points, and consider that Y is the mean of the period from the start of the period ending at X, you get means of 00:02:30 2.5 IDK, in my mind, that is just as valid a point, and could be graphed just as easily as 00:03:00 3 would have been if there had been 5 data points (following the same pattern). Hmm, that is actually not correct. If 00:04:00 is the endpoint of a period of 4 minutes, then the middle of that interval is at 00:02:00. You have to consider time not as points, but as intervals. And, you have to know if the point in the dataset represents the start, end, or middle of that interval. Cosmetically, it could be a little easier to deal with the periods of the base measurement aligning with the period of the calculated mean, but if you can put 2.3 children per couple on a graph, I'm pretty sure you can define a point in the middle of a month. For that matter, months are kind of a poor choice for period; there is not the same amount of time in all months. Nevermind leap years, and leap year February. I'm sure that people that deal with temperature record data have figured all this in, but let's not assume that what's convenient for cosmetics or human thought patterns is a requirement of reality. On the other hand, I'm open to the idea that I missed something. Or, maybe I'm overstating the obvious. Or, maybe I'm just overstating the obscure. -
muoncounter at 14:51 PM on 22 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics#29: "I will highly appreciate if anyone refer me to "Climate Science Laws"" The laws you seek are no more than the laws of physics, such as Conservation of Energy, Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's Radiation Law, Kirchoff's Law of thermal radiation, etc. Do you insist that every sub-discipline have its own unique set of laws? If so, what are the 'Laws of Quantum Mechanics'? If, by your earlier comment, we cannot capture all of quantum mechanics in a single deterministic equation, do you claim to invalidate what is often called the most successful scientific theory we have? -
jyyh at 14:08 PM on 22 January 20122011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
Then there's the question of how much data is available from the Arctic and Antarctic during the war times, if it was relatively cold in these locations, this could bring the CRU observational dataset down. The topmost snow/ice from Greenland and Antarctic icecore locations should provide some evidence.
Prev 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 Next
