Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 Next
Comments 65951 to 66000:
-
Tristan at 01:09 AM on 26 January 2012Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
Tom I think your benchmark for whether or not you advocate nuclear power is probably too high. We shouldn't simply be comparing nuclear power's socio-economic costs to that of renewable power in some sort of absolute sense. We should be comparing the impact of pushing for the adoption of both nuclear and renewable energy sources vs pushing for renewable sources without nuclear. The resources and public, private and gov't attitudes to researching and rolling out renewable and nuclear power sources aren't mutually inclusive. That is to say, we will be able to improve our socio-eco-enviro situation faster (by removing fossil fuels from the energy grid) if we engage in the promotion of both alternative power sources. -
Kevin C at 00:48 AM on 26 January 2012Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
I'd add one more criterion to Tom's list. I'd like a future reactor design to be able to maintain containment and a stable temperature without external services from within minutes of a shutdown. In an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment, an event leading to loss of external services with minimal warning seems to be an increasingly plausible scenario. As far as I am aware, no Gen3+ design meets this criteria. I think some Gen4 designs may do so. The Hyperion and Toshiba 4S reactors are both small scale fast reactors with liquid metal coolant, which thus appear to draw on the IFR research. (Probably the FUJI MSR does as well). See the article List of small nuclear reactor designs for more. -
Kevin C at 20:56 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Dana quoted:"Temperature change from climate models, including that reported in 1988 (12), usually refers to temperature of surface air over both land and ocean. Surface air temperature change in a warming climate is slightly larger than the SST change (4), especially in regions of sea ice. Therefore, the best temperature observation for comparison with climate models probably falls between the meteorological station surface air analysis and the land–ocean temperature index."
Ah - a penny drops. That's why when no other data is available, GISTEMP extrapolates land temperatures over ocean but not the other way round. In recent decades this only occurs over sea ice, since the weather station and SST coverage are good enough to cover the rest of the planet. The asymmetry had been bugging me. -
RonManley at 20:50 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
In reply to various comments above, I admit that the two examples I quoted were not fully equivalent. Michaels deliberately excised part of a graph (he has argued that it was valid); Mann may have just have been sloppy. Behind these specific examples there are I think two points: 1. Both presentations were to a lay audience; congress in the one case, the audience at a wide ranging event with a diversity of speakers in the other. Since it would be easy to ‘pull the wool over the eyes’ of such people, an ethical approach to climate science would require a high standard of transparency even at some risk of diluting the message. 2. In the long run it is important to demand the same rigour of those you agree with as of those you disagree with, a point which many of the comments above accept. -
Ari Jokimäki at 20:43 PM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Thank you all for compliments. I have to note that these posts are not a good reflection of the number of studies each week. I only include those that I have found especially interesting. Hundreds of climate related papers are published each week. I only point out a few of them. Most of them would deserve to be included here. Sorry OPatrick, I don't understand what parallel lifetime means in this context (I do understand the words separately). -
OPatrick at 19:44 PM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Another big thumbs up here. Also I like the teaser questions at the start - maybe the answers could be given seprately, or we could be left to puzzle them out. A parallel lifetime would help to give a chance of reading and digesting it all though - any chance of arranging that? -
Tom Curtis at 17:31 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Owl905 @19, the context of the usage of this particular graph is: 1) Mann identifies scenario B as the scenario we have followed most closely ("... it turns out we have more or less followed that medium scenario ..." 2:18); 2) He claims Hansen's prediction was accurate ("... the warming predicted by the model is pretty much spot on ..." 2:26 ); and 3) He claims the prediction is a two decade prediction (so that's a very successful two decade in advance prediction." 2:32) But, rather than showing two decades of data (1988-2008) he only shows 17 years (1988-2005). He does not mention the absent data, and given that the talk occurred in 2011, there is no good reason for the absent data. Further, as discussed above, he did not show the most relevant temperature series, and he does not mention that he is not using the most appropriate temperature data. He does indicate that the observed data is "Observed weather station data" on the graph, but that would be by no means clear to the audience, and he certainly does not explain to the audience the difference between the land station only data, which he shows, and the land/ocean data which he should have shown. In other words, he does not in anyway provide the necessary context which would justify the choices made in presenting that graph. Readers are certainly welcome to review the talk (which is otherwise very good). I should note that: a) Mann does terminate other graphs early, but so far as I know that is of no consequence as the other early terminations do not distort the data. It is, however, an indication of sloppiness in presentation. b) Dana has shown that properly presented, Hansen's 2008 projections are remarkably accurate, suffering only from the fact that the climate sensitivity of his model is too high. That means the model does show that anthropogenic forcings are the dominant influence on global temperature change (excluding over very short term periods); and that with a corrected climate sensitivity, it means we are in very serious trouble if we do not curtail emissions. But none of these points mean that Mann did not make a mistake in the graph he used in the presentation. He should acknowledge the mistake, and correct it before using that slide again in future. -
owl905 at 15:28 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Curtis @17 Taking the time to actually go back and view the context would be more valuable than continued judgmental statements with an assumption of "error". In fact, in other graphs the end-point is even earlier - 2000 or 2002. And that's because of the context of the usage: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/index.php There's no error in those graphs, as is, within the context of his usage. Mann even references model holding up to a decades test. It isn't deceptive or erroneous, and Ron Manley's chum-statement that the data was truncated is in the same league as "hide the decline". -
dana1981 at 14:42 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Sorry, I guess I didn't talk about land vs. land-ocean data in the Hansen 1988 rebuttal. I thought I had. Anyway, here's Hansen et al. (2006) on the subject:"Temperature change from climate models, including that reported in 1988 (12), usually refers to temperature of surface air over both land and ocean. Surface air temperature change in a warming climate is slightly larger than the SST change (4), especially in regions of sea ice. Therefore, the best temperature observation for comparison with climate models probably falls between the meteorological station surface air analysis and the land–ocean temperature index."
In the paper, they do plot both land-only and land-ocean data through 2005. -
Albatross at 14:32 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
Hank Roberts at Eli's place nicely summarizes what Pat and Chip are doing: "Hank Roberts said... You have to remember he does _advocacy_. "the natural conclusion to be drawn from the omission of a fact is that the fact did not occur." Modern trial advocacy: analysis and practice -- By Steven Lubet" -
Tom Curtis at 14:06 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
dana @16, interesting that the average might be most appropriate. That being the case, however, post 2006 then both should be shown. Indeed, if Michael Mann has copied his graph from Hansen's 2006 paper, but deleted the land-ocean temperature then his offense is as least as great as Michaels' and Knappenberger's in deleting information from the Gillett et al graph, or the Schmittner et al graph. Please note the hypothetical. I do not have any evidence that that is what he has done. His error may just be negligence, but it is certainly something he should correct in any future presentations of the graph. In this case it is particularly unfortunate that somebody who is subject to so much illegitimate criticism by fake skeptics should give them a genuine reason to criticize him. -
Tom Curtis at 13:59 PM on 25 January 2012Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
David, while obviously off topic here, I cannot find a more appropriate topic for this discussion, so will answer you here. I have a benchmark for nuclear power. The use of nuclear power will inevitably involve the disposal of high grade nuclear waste. I understand that third or fourth generation reactors will limit the amount that is required for disposal, but some will still require disposal. The benchmark I have is that the nuclear waste be disposed of in such a way that that: 1) Its average radioactivity be equal to or less than that of Uranium ore; 2) It be just as economically costly to collect into a more concentrated form as it is to process uranium ore to reactor fuel; and 3) The disposal be in an area which is not prone to faulting or leaching. The reason for the benchmark is very simple: nuclear waste is a long term problem, and we cannot guarantee political stability in the long term. Therefore we should dispose of nuclear waste in a way which makes the waste no more accessible than the original uranium was. By so doing, we have at least not made the risks to our descendants worse than if we had just left the uranium in the ground. The universal reaction to this benchmark by people who propose the use of nuclear power to date has been that it is a ridiculously high, and uneconomic standard. Well, IMO it is a minimum standard (and also a standard environmental organizations will have great difficulty objecting to). If nuclear power is uneconomic when this standard is applied relative to renewable power, than nuclear power is uneconomic simpliciter, and should not be part of a future energy mix. If nuclear power is economic with this standard applied, then by all means we should develop it provided we have adequate safe guards against operation accidents, accidental losses, and security risks (which are issues for our generation, and hence can be dealt with democratically). I interpret the reflex rejection of this standard by nuclear advocates as equivalent to the reflex downplaying of the Fukushima reactor crisis. In the few days immediately after the disaster, almost every pro-nuclear blogger I know downplayed the accident, predicting that there would be zero deaths, and making jokes about the radioactivity of bananas. My response to that at the time is that they just could not know at the time, and obviously so. That they would respond in that way, however, shows that they are not to be trusted when they say nuclear power is safe. They just don't get the issues involved. I am on record on this site (immediately after the disaster, and I stand by the opinion in hindsight) of saying that Fukushima is not a reason to give up on nuclear power, and I am disappointed that Germany has decided to wind back its nuclear program so fast in response (which does not show a proper recognition of relative risks). But the fact that so many pro-nuclear advocates (and very intelligent, scientist pro-nuclear advocates) just don't get the safety concerns is, IMO, reason to not proceed with nuclear power. If the people who propose (and design) nuclear plants don't get the safety concerns, you can have no confidence that their designs will actually satisfy those concerns, regardless of their reassurances. -
dana1981 at 13:58 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Tom @13 - I totally agree, my previous comment simply wasn't clear. I was agreeing with MarkR's point that it's understandable to make the mistake of focusing on CO2 when evaluating Hansen's scenarios. That said, as we've both noted, even focusing on CO2 it's clear that Scenario C was closest in 1998, and I totally agree that making a false presentation to Congress without checking the data behind it is gross negligence. Tom @14 - I agree with one exception. There's some question as to whether land-only or land-ocean data is more appropriate for comparison with Hansen's 1988 projections. In a 2006 paper, I believe Hansen argued that the average of the two might be the most appropriate. See my Hansen 1988 myth rebuttal linked at the end of the OP for additional details. -
Albatross at 13:30 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Tom @14, Good points Tom. -
Tom Curtis at 13:24 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
RonManley @10, first, the blog you link to makes a silly connection. It discusses Skeptical Science's criticisms of Michaels, then says, "However, if the pot is calling the kettle black it had better make sure that it is burnished and spotlessly shining." It then goes on to discuss Mann's graph. That is a complete non sequitur. Michael Mann is not a member of the Skeptical Science team, and is not a spokesperson for Skeptical Science. Neither are we spokes people for Michael Mann. The websites suggestion that somebody should not be criticized by another because some random third person is not perfect in every way smacks of desperation to distract from the real issues relating to Michaels testimony. Further, the standard (quoted above) is not applicable to science. In science, it is understood that nobody has perfect knowledge. That does not preclude anybody from criticizing errors, nor absolve anybody from listening to those criticisms. The suggestion that no criticism be made in science except by perfect sources is just a demand that science cease. I am sure that is not the authors intentions, but it is certainly the consequence of applying that standard in science. Turning to Mann's graph, it shows two defects. First, it shows the land station only data from GISS; and second, it truncates that data in 2005. Neither are acceptable practise. The Hansen predictions where for global temperatures, so global, ie, land/ocean temperatures should have been shown. What is more, old graphs in current use for presentations should be updated on an annual basis at minimum. Therefore, the criticisms of Michael Mann in that post are entirely justified. What is not justified is the suggestion that the misrepresentation by Mann (whether accidental or not) is as bad as that by Michaels. It is not. In this case, a decidedly black pot is being used as an excuse for not noting that the kettle is full of three week old porridge, and has become a rat's nest. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:13 PM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Philippe, my words (not singling anyone out) were"Everyone, please refrain from anything that patonomics may construe as baiting."
with the operative word being "construe". Given the circumstances, patonomics is protecting his "secret inner worldview" by selectively ignoring, misinterpreting, taking out of context and by even deliberately taking faux outrage at perceived slights from among the best-intended contributions of others. Given such an individual, "blind" by his own volition, perhaps the best response is no response at all. It is not my wont to tell stories, but in this case I shall make exception:There once was a US politician from the southern part of the country. This gentleman had won elections so often his victories could not easily be counted. At a political rally, a shy boy came up to the great man and asked "Sir, what is the secret to your being able to win so many elections?" The politician smiled, knelt and whispered into the boy's ear (so no one else could hear), "Son, the secret to winning an election is to keep the third of the people who hate your guts from swaying the third of the people who have yet to make up their minds..."
The obvious takeaway being that there exist those whom you trust, those in the middle and those that you cannot trust. Some lost sheep are unrepentant and unrecoverable. For those last, shake the dust off of your feet and move on. Let us go and do likewise. -
Tom Curtis at 12:53 PM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
dana1981 @5, it was not a somewhat understandable mistake in 1988. The only scientifically justifiable basis on which to exclude two of three projections is if it is known that the forcings follow that projection and diverge from the other two. In science, you get to claim that you know something only after you check the data. There is no ifs and no buts about that. Michaels was testifying before Congress as an expert witness on the basis that he was a scientist, and therefore the standards of science should have applied to his testimony. It follows that the only legitimate basis for his excluding scenarios B and C is if he had actually checked the forcing data and found it to match scenario A significantly closer than either scenario B or C. In 1997 (the last full year of data at the time of Michael's testimony), Hansen's projected CO2 concentrations where 365.34 ppmv for scenario A, 365.13 ppmv for scenario B, and 363.31 for scenario C. For the same year, Mauna Loa shows 363.76 ppmv. So by the simplest, and easily available test, reality was running closer to Scenario C in 1997 than to Scenario B, let alone Scenario A. As you have shown, when all forcings are taken into account, 1997 was actually running below Scenario C:
It follows that his testimony represents either gross negligence (at best) or deliberate falsehood (far more probably). These standards are not obscure points, and the relevant facts have not been hidden from Michaels. So certainly his continued defense of the presentation represents deliberate falsehood, and makes the possibility of simple negligence as an explanation in 1998 extremely remote.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:13 PM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
DB, I must say that it was not my intention to bait on an off-topic subject. The impossible expectation of pure deterministic knowledge is in fact not widespread among people, this was the first example that came to my mind as an illustration, but there are plenty of others (geology comes to mind). -
Rob Painting at 12:07 PM on 25 January 2012Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
Err, no thanks on the nuclear power here in NZ. Too damn expensive. Our wind farms require no subsidies. I think that indicates how lucky we are. -
Rob Painting at 12:04 PM on 25 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Zeboo - no need for an apology. Your friend Patonomics is engaging in a form of denial. That's not a condition we can cure. Be nice if he didn't write in riddles too, it impresses no one here. State things plainly - if you can't maybe you don't know what you're on about? -
David Lewis at 11:50 AM on 25 January 2012Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
I've studied nuclear power as a potential solution to the problem of replacing fossil fuel use for some years now, ever since Jim Hansen circulated his views calling for a massive deployment of breeder reactors of a specific US design called the IFR. It came to my mind when I saw the "Debunking Handbook", that the negative statements about nuclear power expressed in another of John Cook's books, i.e. "Climate Change Denial" starting on page 143 could stand debunking themselves. It happens that a new book "Plentiful Energy" is out written by two of the people who ran Argonne National Lab when it was the foremost design lab for nuclear reactors that existed in the world. These are the two men most responsible for the design of the reactor Hansen is touting. This reactor design was the culmination of the reactor design work Argonne produced. The design was intended to directly address all supposed failings of nuclear power generation technology. The reactor produces more fuel than it uses. The fuel is a different type than used in existing reactors and can be reprocessed on site so potential bomb making material is sent back into the reactor to be burnt. The reprocessing setup can't be manipulated to produce highly refined bomb grade material in any case. The waste stream that leaves the reactor site decays back to the level of radioactivity of natural ore in a few hundred years. Nothing would have to be mined for hundreds of years as the design can burn the waste generated by the existing reactor types as well as the massive stocks of depleted uranium. It is a solution for the existing nuclear waste problem as well as the solution for how to replace fossil fuels. The authors make the case that the program to build the design at full scale as the last step prior to commercialization was terminated in 1994 by anti nuclear people led by John Kerry in the US Senate backed by the newly inaugurated President Clinton using as their rationale arguments that don't stand up to examination. "We don't need it", is what Kerry said on the Senate floor. Well that was before it became apparent to people that we do need massive amounts of low carbon energy that can be produced for the foreseeable future because of climate change. I hope John and his co-author Dr Haydn Washington read "Plentiful Energy" and see if they would stand by what is in "Climate Change Denial" about nuclear power afterward. When Hansen was touring New Zealand recently he was asked about nuclear power. He said: "it's really a case of you should be examining that, along with all the other alternatives, because we have an emergency situation". -
Brian Purdue at 11:42 AM on 25 January 2012Climate Change Denial and the Media - Banishment of Science Reality
Skeptikal It would appear the article struck a raw nerve with you. That’s good because its intention was to do exactly that - by exposing the difference between skepticism and denial. Your comments break most of the rules that true skeptics apply like “Experts do know more” and “Trust the scientific method”. And you were even kind enough to include the denialist’s myth about the scientific consensus in the 1970s being that the world was heading for another ice age. It certainly was the consensus in the media and your acceptance of it still is testament to massive power wheeled by the mass media - as pointed out in the article. You look to me to be one of the many hiding behind the facade of skepticism. -
michael sweet at 11:26 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Ron, It appears to me that Mann has simply not updated his slides recently. Perhaps he rarely gives this talk. As your reference points out this makes the data look "slightly different". Who cares? Hardly comparable to Michaels claiming the opposite of what the data show. -
Zeboo at 11:13 AM on 25 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
I have to make an apology: I am the friend who pointed Patonomics to SkS and the possibility to discuss AGW here, after I had exhausted my efforts to make him understand the concept. I also had already provided him with copies of or links to a lot of up to date literature and discussions, on climate models, trends, the BEST study, Arctic ice melt, etc etc, whatever i could find including Principles of Planetary Climate. Only having a PhD in medicine, some odd 30 years in science and having read climate science literature for the last 20 yrs I thought that maybe I lacked clarity in my arguments.... Thanks anyway to all of you who took time to engage in the debate. -
Albatross at 10:39 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Ron @10, "that is to give a favoural impression of the projection. " That is conjecture...and a red herring. We are discussing the removal of the scenarios B and C and then making the claim that Scenario A was Hansen et al's prediction. I agree though that the observations should have been included though 2010 (too early for 2011). But this excuse that "Well they allegedly did it!", is quite juvenile and is getting tiresome. So Ron, please state for everyone here whether or not you support Michaels doctoring a graphic generated by scientists to misrepresent their position and thereby misleading Congress and the people of the US. -
Rob Painting at 10:03 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Micheal Sweet - Patonomics is playing the "impossible expectations" card. With his impossible expectations unable to be met by any scientific discipline, he can convince himself of whatever he chooses. Hard to say whether this just a more polite, sophisticated form of trolling, or if he really does believe what he writes. But regardless, I fear any advice to him will fall upon deaf ears. -
RonManley at 09:59 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Recently I noticed another case in which the Hansen 1988 projection graph had been used in a TEDx presentation with data truncated and one of the data series that Hansen had included in his later 2006 paper excluded. In this case the aim of the omissions was the opposite of Michaels', that is to give a favoural impression of the projection. You can see the charts at: Climate Opinions . -
skywatcher at 09:22 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
#8 Nichol: Your #1 is something that would be most entertaining. Put Michaels in from of Hansen, Santer, Rahmstorf, Mann and a couple of hundred other of the top climate scientists. Add Foster for the stats. See how long anything in his presentation survives... Dana answers your #2 above. Your #3 is best asked in the part 1 of this post - in some ways you are right, there is a lower quantity of radiatively active gases in the atmosphere. However, this is not through conscious removal of the gases for their radiative properties. An accident of the Montreal Protocol was to greatly lower the CFC's radiative contribution, and accidents of world politics reduced Russia's GHG contribution in the 1990s. CO2 emissions are rising >linear, so we're now a bit of a way from 'C' on that score, with little action in the pipeline to combat that. You also need to account for the difference between Hansen's sensitivity and the modern best estimate - all of which places us closer to 'B'. -
sidd at 09:15 AM on 25 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
Thank you TOP for the pointer. Here is another, and the thesis work by Jablonowoski linked on the page has a good lit. review. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cjablono/amr.html sidd -
Nick Palmer at 09:12 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Thank you Ari. -
Nichol at 07:57 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
A few obvious questions: 1. should not these expert witnesses giving presentations at congress give a practice presentation, where other scientists can warn them what is wrong. That way they can fix the science questions .. and not present mistaken notions to congress? Or are these hearings set up to be like a law court, with adversarial parties, none really trying to find a 'truth', but rather trying to advocate a certain view? 2. What was the reaction at the time, at this presentation? How can this still be a living meme? 3. It looks like the world has followed a scenario near to the 'best' C, but without the extreme kink at 2000, where all greenhouse gas emissions would have had to have stopped completely. Does this mean that the world has not done quite as bad as one might have feared, in 1988? -
dana1981 at 07:56 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
That's a fair point, it would make more sense to evaluate a transient climate response than the model equilibrium sensitivity. But I think it's still fair to say that Hansen's results are consistent with the IPCC equilibrium climate sensitivity range, whereas the fake skeptics have tried to argue that Hansen's overestimated warming proves sensitivity is low. That's certainly not true. -
michael sweet at 07:52 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Patonomics: You have still not taken the advice you have been given to read the background. Until you have some basic knowledge you cannot add anything to the conversation. Climate Change is a complex subject. You are responsible for finding out the background from the material that has been referred to you and raising the level of your knowledge. If you cannot reference peer reviewed papers to support your wild claims you need to read more. You have been provided with a great amount of data. Please go read it so you can contribute something. -
patonomics at 07:40 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Philippe Chantreau#68: (-snip-) (-snip-) DrTsk#64: (-snip-) (-snip-)Response:[DB] The topic of this post is Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions, not health care. While sensitive to the nature of the information you share, it has no bearing on the topic of this post.
Everyone, please refrain from anything that patonomics may construe as baiting.
Patonomics, if you genuinely wish to learn more about climate science, this website is a great resource, if approached with the right attitude and without ideological preconceptions. If it is not a good fit for you, there are other highly recommended websites that you could be referred to.
Off-topic snipped.
-
EliRabett at 07:25 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Eli went through this a number of years ago, how time flies when you are having fun. A quote there from Hansen sums it up ------------------------------- The climate model we employ has a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2 C for doubled CO2. Other recent GCMs yield equilibrium sensitivities of 2.5-5.5 C..... Forecast temperature trends for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model's equilibrium climate sensitivity (reference provided). Therefore climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2 C, say 1.5 to 2 C, in order for us to modify our conclusions significantly. ------------------------------- -
william5331 at 07:08 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Another possible explanation for the sharp upsurge in atmospheric Carbon dioxide is the release of clathrates accumulated under the ice sheet over the 100,000 year life of the glacial. Once an ice sheet is a few hundred meters thick, conditions are right for any methane and Carbon dioxide from shales (fracked by the ice pressure), coal deposits, petroleum deposits and methanogenesis of organic material http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/09/continental-glacier-meltdown.html http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2011/08/end-of-ice-ages.html http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/07/arctic-melting-no-problem.html -
Conservit at 05:25 AM on 25 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Has anyone looked at a correlation divergence with UV-B? There are several studies that suggest reduced growth with increasing UV exposure as trees increase the production of phenolics and flavonoids at the expense of growth. The timing would seem to fit the increased use of ozone depleting compounds. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:55 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Wow. This is fantastic. I look forward to this being a weekly feature. It'll be interesting to see how many papers get posted each week. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:50 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
37, Pirate, I object to your interpretation of climate change as an indirect cause. In this case it is not exacerbating other existing issues. From Rob's quote from Pounds 2006 (emphasis mine):...we conclude with 'very high confidence' (> 99%, following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) that large-scale warming is a key factor in the disappearances. We propose that temperatures at many highland localities are shifting towards the growth optimum of Batrachochytrium, thus encouraging outbreaks.
Simple facts:- Prior to the increase in temperatures, this pathogen existed but did not extinguish the species for many tens of thousands (millions? tens of millions?) of years
- Temperature changes towards the optimum for this pathogen made outbreaks more frequent and virulent.
- The species is now extinct.
-
dana1981 at 04:49 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
MarkR @3 - as noted in the post, a major issue is that 13+ years later, after his errors have been pointed out to him several times, Michaels inexplicably continues to argue that he was right when he was obviously wrong. I agree that making the mistake in 1998 is somewhat understandable, although a really bad mistake for a supposed climate science expert. Not a mistake one should make in testimony to Congress, but as you say, a relatively easy mistake to make, if one were being lazy and careless. But to continue to defend the error to this day rather than admitting the massive blunder (and to attack anyone who points out the blunder) is absolutely inexcusable. It's the opposite of how a skeptic and scientist should behave. -
WheelsOC at 04:44 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
It's almost as if he chose the most divergent scenario on purpose and went back after the fact to rationalize the choice, rather than start with the data and see which scenario matched it the best. Doesn't that kind of thing sometimes cause editor resignations when it happens in the peer-reviewed journals? -
MarkR at 04:24 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
#1 Robert Murphy: It's an easy mistake to make and a lot of people (including me!) have made it. However, if I were testifying to Congress I would certainly check the background to the data I was using, in this case by reading and understanding the Hansen paper. I wouldn't just use a rhetorical flourish ('business as usual! He said busines as usual!') to delete the data that didn't agree with my opinion. Perhaps Michaels didn't know about this, and should be very embarrassed about this massive blunder. It would certainly make me suspicious about calling him up as an 'expert witness' until he could accept the clear errors and guarantee he was working to prevent them happening again. -
dana1981 at 03:24 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
Robert @1 - yes, CO2 levels don't begin to significantly diverge in the various scenarios until 2000, and even later than that between Scenarios A and B. However, even in 1998, CO2 levels were closest to Scenario C, as discussed in Part 1 of this post. Michaels' entire presentation and continued defense of his distortions are based on a wrong assumption which is very easily checked simply by looking up the GHG data. So the two options are (1) Michaels didn't bother to take the simplest step to confirm the accuracy of his claims, or (2) he did check their accuracy, discovered they were wrong, but continued to make them anyway. Neither possibility reflects very well on Michaels, to put it kindly. -
Robert Murphy at 03:19 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
The thing that has to be understood when looking at the different scenarios (something I didn't fully consider at first myself) is that CO2 was only one component. Scenarios A and B had essentially the same CO2 levels for most of the 20 odd years since 1988. Where they differed greatly was in their assumptions about the other GHG's like N2O, CH4, and especially CCL3F and CCL2F2. The RC page here makes that point very well. People can get distracted by the CO2 levels. It's the totality of the forcings that matter. There never was a reason to think scenario A was close to what actually happened, and Michaels should have known that. -
pbjamm at 03:10 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
apiratelooksat50@37 "My original question was pertaining to extinctions directly from climate change. There are obviously instances where climate change is exacerbating other existing issues such as the chytrid fungus and that I acknowledged." Any environmental pressure could be argued an indirect or second order effect. What would qualify as a direct effect in your opinion? -
Phila at 03:02 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Pirate: However, I can see where we could get hung up on semantics and this could go on endlessly with no positive outcome Hung up on semantics? Really? Whether you define "extinction" as a process of decline or a completed event, evidence provided in this thread proves you wrong. To insist regardless that NCES needs to change its text -- for no other reason than that you chose to read it though ideological blinders -- really is the height of arrogance. As usual, the solution here is not for working scientists to change their terminology to suit your prejudices, but for you to do your homework and develop some humility. Your students deserve nothing less. And at this point, so do the generally patient people who read these threads. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:22 AM on 25 January 2012Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions
Patonomics, you are demonstrating exactly what I argued. If you were sincere, you would already have found on your own all the info linked by moderator above. Language seems to be a barrier but I get your drift with your "man on the street argument." I'm sure the man on the street expects this "packaging" no more than he would with oncology. Do I hear anyone demanding determinism with cancer treatment? [crickets chirping]. No, I guess something that works will suffice after all. Of course, in these matters too the answers will be unwelcome and subjected to all sorts of denial, as with the tobacco wars. It is becoming more and more obvious that you are no interested in learning about reality. If you were, you'd already know better. I'd recommend all: DNFTT. -
prokaryotes at 01:30 AM on 25 January 2012Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
About projections and models. Long lived CFC’s, Methane, Nitrous Oxide uptake and the destruction of the northern hemisphere Ozone Layer The ozone hole which appeared in 2011, 220dobson was predicted by Shindell et al in 1998 to occur 2010-2019. Now with all the other Greenhouse gases and BAU++ scenarios we are on, the ozone layer's future is at peril. -
dhogaza at 00:51 AM on 25 January 2012New research from last week 3/2012
Absolutely fantastic, Ari. -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:13 AM on 25 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Rob at 20 Sorry, I was away from the computer yesterday. My original question was pertaining to extinctions directly from climate change. There are obviously instances where climate change is exacerbating other existing issues such as the chytrid fungus and that I acknowledged. In my perception that is an indirect effect. I would like to see the statement on NCES reworded to reflect that. However, I can see where we could get hung up on semantics and this could go on endlessly with no positive outcome, and therefore I will accept your position.
Prev 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 Next
