Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 Next
Comments 66901 to 66950:
-
RyanStarr at 12:12 PM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
The claim that Mr Watts "thought [BEST] would prove his anti-warming beliefs" is pure speculation. Anthony provides grounds for his concerns and acknowledges his stance is at odds with his previous statement, "I would accept their findings whatever they were, but that was when I expected them to do science per the scientific process." "When BEST approached me, I was told they were doing science by the regular process, and that would include peer review. Now it appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR." And more specifically in relation to BESTs 60 year time period, "I see this as a basic failure in understanding the limitations of the siting survey we conducted on the USHCN, rendering the Muller et al paper conclusions highly uncertain, if not erroneous." He adds he would accept the result (one result?) if they used a 30 year period. -
Jose_X at 10:30 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
When new trends appear to be establishing themselves, we should ask ourselves why? Can we explain it with past effects and cycles? Has a new driver/variable recently been thrown into the mix that appears to explain the new trend? Mainstream CO2 warming theory fits well into what would otherwise be more puzzling. -
Doug Hutcheson at 10:16 AM on 8 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
A new acronym is emerging: fossil fuel-funded think tank = ffftt. It is pure coincidence that ffftt is the sound of methane or CO2 escaping from confinement ... -
skywatcher at 10:08 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Shoeymore @14 tries desperately to avoid the consequences of accepting this simple and elegant animation... -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:55 AM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
"How does one then conclude that Anthony thought BEST would prove his anti-warming beliefs?" Quite easily. One only has to look at his words and actions after the BEST results were published. They say everything one needs to know on what his expectations, or hopes, truly were before publication. -
DrTsk at 07:04 AM on 8 January 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
They are rather strong contenders! -
John Hartz at 05:55 AM on 8 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Suggested reading “As wild weather hits Latin America, experts look to both La Nina and climate change”, Washington Post/AP, Jan 6, 2012 To access this article, click here. -
pbjamm at 02:50 AM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
He made a bet, lost the bet, then claimed he was cheated and welched on it. It appears to me that he thought the bet to be a sure thing. -
CBDunkerson at 02:42 AM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
RyanStarr wrote: "How does one then conclude that Anthony thought BEST would prove his anti-warming beliefs?" You remember the part where he also said that he would accept whatever result they came up with, right? And then... didn't? See, some of us take things like that to indicate that not everything Anthony Watts says is true. I know... it's a head spinner, but just roll with it for a minute. If we look at this silly thing called 'observed reality' instead of just accepting everything he says we find that he frequently says things which conflict with reality... and even with other things he has said. Observed reality, on the other hand, tends to be fairly consistent with itself. So, citing Anthony Watts as saying something doesn't really make quite as a compelling case for it being true as you seem to think... especially as it was part of a statement where he first said he would do one thing... and then later did the opposite. -
RyanStarr at 02:21 AM on 8 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Above says Anthony Watts "thought [BEST] would prove his anti-warming beliefs to be right because it was being done by someone he thought was in his camp". The following quote comes from the same piece where the attached quote ("I'm prepared to accept...") is sourced: "But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing." Those are the words from the horses mouth, so to speak. How does one then conclude that Anthony thought BEST would prove his anti-warming beliefs? -
Tom Curtis at 01:25 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Shoyermore @14, making a line red in colour does not make it a link. As for the possibility that the owner is drunk, we can subtract from the dogs path the effects of likely distractions. If the owner is drunk as well, the result will still be a random walk. As it happens, it isn't:
-
shoyemore at 01:18 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Link in last post does not work. Try this in your browser http://www.jstor.org/pss/2685084 Or Google cointegration drunk woman dog -
shoyemore at 01:15 AM on 8 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
It is interesting to think through what happens (1) when the leash is removed. The dog's path becomes a random walk with a trend (the owner's path). (2) the leash is removed, and the owner is now very drunk and in the dark. Now the man's walk is a trendless random walk, but the dog is still "orbiting" him. Or maybe the man is following the dog, the one who knows better how to get home. Or maybe they are influencing each other, while going home very haphazardly? In this case how can you tell the two walks are correlated? This might be important to test for correlation of temperature and CO2 levels, where both have lots of variability. Apparently, you look for a "leash" an error correction mechanism between man and dog by subtracting their paths and seeing if it is non-random. If the man calls the dog, it will change direction. If the man hears the dog barking, he will head in its direction. Such stationary linear combinations of non-stationary random variables is called "cointegration". Here is an amuusing introduction: A Drunk and her Dog I wondered if the technique could be used to check correlation of CO2 and temperature. A standard denialist trope is that correlation between their rise is only coincidence. -
Paul D at 20:42 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Love the video! -
John Brookes at 19:11 PM on 7 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Well done for giving Murdoch second place. Believe it or not, many "skeptics" are not happy with the media, thinking that they follow the party line too much, and don't give enough space to their loony views. -
Bert from Eltham at 16:57 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Apart from now defining grey body emitters as the new black and autocorrelation as a trick that drives the trend the denialists are grasping at fictional straws. They then claim that the average temperature of our planet has no meaning? By what measure should we judge? Bert -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:36 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Another excellent resource for me to link to when I am on a debunking mission at other blogs! Shooting down contrarians like pirate, using sober logic instead of their type of religious dogma, is getting to be like shooting fish in a barrel: there is nowhere for them to hide from the light of reason. Keep up the good work. -
Stephen Baines at 15:15 PM on 7 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
mc, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying there was "equilibrium" with respect to the tone of debate or the methods being employed. I was referring to the equilibrium in my own soul that depends on a vague persistent hope for some real dialogue across these boundaries, in spite of the craziness that is going on. -
DeWitt Payne at 14:38 PM on 7 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Mond from Oz, You do realize that the largest company in the oil industry isn't privately owned. It's Saudi Aramco. The estimated worth at $781bn is over half again as large as Exxon Mobil at $454bn. In fact, nine of the top ten largest unlisted corporations are state owned oil companies which control the vast majority of proven reserves. -
muoncounter at 13:15 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
And of course pirate ignores the fact that since 8000 years BP, the mean temperature change was bounded by approximately 1 degree (-0.5 to 0.5C). We're now busting out of that range to potentially dire consequences. How anyone with any scientific inclination can look at that graphic and not be concerned is astonishing. -
muoncounter at 13:10 PM on 7 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
Stephen Baines#73: Equilibrium? Has anyone who accepts the reality of climate science made death threats to deniers? Against their families? All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Ball is in your court, conservatives; speak out against evil or do nothing. -
Tom Curtis at 12:32 PM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
The source of pirate's second graphic notes that:"This figure shows the Antarctic temperature changes during the last several glacial/interglacial cycles of the present ice age and a comparison to changes in global ice volume. The present day is on the right. The first two curves shows local changes in temperature at two sites in Antarctica as derived from deuterium isotopic measurements (δD) on ice cores (EPICA Community Members 2004, Petit et al. 1999). The final plot shows a reconstruction of global ice volume based on δ18O measurements on benthic foraminifera from a composite of globally distributed sediment cores and is scaled to match the scale of fluctuations in Antarctic temperature (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). Note that changes in global ice volume and changes in Antarctic temperature are highly correlated, so one is a good estimate of the other, but differences in the sediment record do no necessarily reflect differences in paleotemperature. Horizontal lines indicate modern temperatures and ice volume. However, since geological records such as ice cores and sediments represent an average often on the scale of thousands of years, direct comparison to current values can be misleading. Larger, short term variations in ancient climate are not present in the fossil record. Hence the comparison is not comparing like with like and is scientifically invalid. Differences in the alignment of various features reflect dating uncertainty and do not indicate different timing at different sites."
Although the Antarctic ice cores indeed record local temperatures, which are a poor proxy for global temperatures, the temperature scale is intended to indicate global temperature changes. There is, however, substantial controversy over that scale, with Hansen and Sato, for example, arguing that the glacial preceding the current glacial was only 1 degree C warmer than the current glacial rather than the 2-3 degrees C indicated on the chart. The source of his first figure states:"The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line). The data are for the period from 10000 BC to 2000 CE, which is from 12000 BP to the present time. The records are plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature, and the global average temperature in 2004 is indicated. An inset plot compares the most recent two millennia of the average to other recent reconstructions. At the far right of this plot it is possible to observe the emergence of climate from the last glacial period of the current ice age. During the Holocene itself, there is general scientific agreement that temperatures on the average have been quite stable compared to fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The above average curve supports this belief. However, there is a slightly warmer period in the middle which might be identified with the proposed Holocene climatic optimum. The magnitude and nature of this warm event is disputed, and it may have been largely limited to high northern latitudes. Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot. Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could significantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate of Holocene temperature fluctuations"
The sentence which I bolded is worth dwelling on. The proxies displayed show a Northern Hemisphere (3 proxies) and tropical (3 proxies) bias, not to mention a Western hemisphere (5 proxies) bias. Names are just names, so not a great deal should be read into this, but it is sobering to think that temperatures have now gone well past the Holocene Climactic Optimum and are continuing to rise. It is curious that pirate did not show the third graphic from the same < href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png">source:
The current, and very disturbing long term trend is clear. As noted above by Composer, since 2004 the 1998 (& 2002)record has fallen. It should be noted that that record was also exceeded in 2007 and 2009, although those were not record years because lower than the 2005 (and 2010) record. (Data) None of those records are certain because they all lie within error of each other, but all clearly exceed any record prior to 1998.
-
Justinl72 at 12:10 PM on 7 January 2012Why I care about climate change
I just wanted to say thanks for making this site, and keeping up with it. I link to it whenever I get the chance. You've made everything so easy to understand, I love it! -
Mond from Oz at 12:01 PM on 7 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
So why are the deniers doing it? I suspect that an explanation - additional to those usually cited (money?) - lies in the immensity of the revolution that is involved in doing anything significant about AGW. Get rid of the carbon economy? What, long before the immense investments of the worlds richest corporations have paid off? Thats big enough. But it involves some aspects of 'World Government' And its in the context of a growing realisation that we inevitably face an end to 'Growth', and with that, the collapse of capitalism. Beyond the consequences of drought and storm and shortage, which, despite denial they can see as well as we, lies the challenge to the established hierarchies of government, religion and social order. The basis of denial lies in its terror and confusion at this prospect. Of the final triumph of the enlightenment, perhaps? -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:09 AM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
I believe a pirate's first graph is a product of Dr Robert Rohde who was part of the BEST project. -
Composer99 at 08:32 AM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
I'm assuming pirate's showing how AGW is definitely real given the presence of the 2004 arrow in the first graph, unambiguously showing how modern warming is far out of line with the multiproxy mean of the Holocene, even the HCO. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:29 AM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
apirate unwittingly confirms the urgency of the modern temperature rise relative to the HCO. With an outdated wiki graphic at that. Fake-skeptic Fail. -
Global Warming: Trend and Variation
This video demonstrates the difference between weather and climate in a way that should be understandable to most people. It was made for a Norwegian TV documentary called "Siffer" (meaning digits) about numbers and math that was very popular when it aired on the Norwegian public channel NRK last fall. Most of you have probably figured out that "klima" means climate and "vær" means weather. -
michael sweet at 07:30 AM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Pirate: What is your point? In your graph I see a decline for 8,000 years and then for the past 500 years an increasingly steep climb to the highest level recorded in the record. The climb is so steep it is not yet visible in your smoothed average. I note your data does not include the record high year of 2010 (or the previous record of 2005). A clear change in trend from declining due to natural variation to increasing due to anthropogenic causes is what we are woried about. -
apiratelooksat50 at 07:21 AM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
Exactly. Long term patterns are important.
[Source]
[Source]
Moderator Response:[JH} Please provide citations for graphics included in your postings.
[DB] Added patrimony of source graphics.
-
Stephen Baines at 06:11 AM on 7 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
John Hartz@70....Great find! Predictably, the first comment casts aspersions on the morality of climate scientsis, calling them corrupt, but the message is heartwarming. Nice counter to mc's post. Equilibrium restored! -
Stephen Baines at 06:02 AM on 7 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
I think thoughtful conservatives should worry about that mc, because if the parts of the movement that are responsible for that kind of behavior toward Kayhoe continue to have free reign, the aims of conservatism will suffer in the long run. That behavior runs against basic norms of behavior, fairness and discounts the reality of nature itself. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:30 AM on 7 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Apologies. Had I known that before cleaning up the thread I could have learned an answer for you. -
muoncounter at 05:21 AM on 7 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
Thoughtful conservatives, if any actually exist, must speak out against this revolting behavior. Over the last six months – I’ve always had a low level of hate mail – that’s what goes with the game, but ever since I had an interview in the Guardian – how to talk to a climate sceptic…and another article in the LA Times – ever since those pieces came out my hate-mail has increased exponentially. I open up my mail in the morning and delete 10, read one, delete 10 more, read one. There are blogs that are devoted to blogging about how I’ve lied about X, Y and Z. Somebody filed a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission in the UK stating I had lied, by saying that winter temperatures in Texas are getting warmer, which they certainly are. The abuse, the virulence, the hatred is astonishing. And much of it is coming from people who share much of the same values as I do, and that’s what is so hurtful about it. It’s a wholestyle rejection – you can be right for 99/100, but if you differ on point 100 you deserve anything that people give you. Add a new line to this one: First they came for the scientists and I did not speak out, as I was not a scientist. -
actually thoughtful at 05:18 AM on 7 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
Of note to those who worry about the impact trolls have on a thread - after removing the troll comments, and the responses to troll comments, this thread went from 50 to 20 comments. And some of the 20 were inspired by the troll (not in response, but in the spirit of lets return this thread to the original subject (which I am obviously not doing here). And, having wandered into the forbidden land of questioning the moderators - yesterday I posted the phrase "those who claim more warming than is supported by the science..." The words "more warming" were snipped with no reason given. This has me scratching my head. Thanks for what you do.Moderator Response: [Rob P] - You were previously asked not to use all caps. Check out the HTML tips on the comments policy page for how to use bold tags. The use of all capitals (ie. shouting) is something we wish to discourage. -
John Hartz at 05:14 AM on 7 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
Suggested reading: “National Association of Evangelicals on global warming: ‘Care, understand, and respond’ “ by J. Drake Hamilton, Fresh Energy, Jan 5, 2012 To access this article, click “here. -
Stephen Baines at 05:09 AM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
This is a great analogy. With regard to inferring the path, though, we can do a fair bit better than "looking for the long term trend." The physics tells us where the trend is likely to lie and what may affect it. It's as if we had a note from the owner telling us where he was going on his dog walk, and why. -
EOttawa at 04:32 AM on 7 January 2012Global Warming: Trend and Variation
What a great video! Will be a wonderful resource when 'debating' with those who confuse one for the other. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 7 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
"policymakers, and the general critical thinker who can recognize fallacy and fluff when they see it." If that's your target audience, I'm afraid you may find it to be stunningly scarce these days. Look at Watts rounding up enough of a crowd to declare his thing a science blog. Fallacy and fluff eh? -
stephenthomson at 03:22 AM on 7 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
@ sphaerica 46 and rob 47, re: the c02 ad, it's true that that ad is uncomfortable. that might be why I included it, particularly after SS says "[people and politicians] are capable of [figuring it out], but they rarely do it." The ad is not entirely untrue. Although I find it laughably non-sequitur and frustratingly slick, it is true in both cases that branding C02 as a pollutant probably WOULD cost jobs (the kind we dont want to keep around anyway - I'm reminded of Bill Maher's "F%#$ your jobs!" - while creating new jobs in a better sector) and that C02 is not a pollutant anyway, in the traditional sense. It's not as easy as saying 'C02 is good or bad' - as we know, it's a matter of balance on a macro scale, not of a molecule's inherent goodness or badness. The ad is a culminating example of a flawed public dialogue. it's gold (for me). The difference of opinion we share about showing this ad illustrates the fact that you, the SKS community, are directing your work towards denialists - whom you see as having to be kept on a strict diet of information - while I'm directing my work towards you: scientific community, media journalism, policymakers, and the general critical thinker who can recognize fallacy and fluff when they see it. As to the wisdom of posting it here on this site, I leave that to you to judge, as you know best your clientele. I do thank you once again, though, for the exposure. @citizenschallenge 48, great idea! -
Composer99 at 03:02 AM on 7 January 2012The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
With regards to the #1 climate B[ad]S[cience] award winner (the Republican presidential hopefuls), I really don't see much chance of either their presidential hopefuls or their congressional representatives altering their positions on climate science unless and until there are similar shifts in: (1) The hard-core "Tea Party" GOP electoral base (I have read elsewhere surveys suggesting that large proportions, perhaps even majorities, of GOP voters have saner views on climate change and the necessity of increasing renewable/carbon-free energy sources - however they do not appear to be vocal enough, or as committed to electoral victory to attenuate the extremist factions) (2) The agencies which are the primary donors to GOP electoral campaigns And I don't see either of those happening soon. -
les at 02:04 AM on 7 January 2012It's the sun
I'm a bit confused... isn't this, kind of, the whole point of the Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal paper? Separation of the GHG .v. other factors? And, for those who still don't get figure 3... a little video -
muoncounter at 00:40 AM on 7 January 2012Models are unreliable
The section in AR4 that Tristan seems to feel is a problem is here. -
muoncounter at 00:33 AM on 7 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan#459: "The AR4 is doing the forecasting. Not me. " Wasn't this you in #465?: "We won't get there at the current warming rate." Sounds like a forecast to me. Again, so what? Especially now that we see you're talking about the average of models, not any specific model. -
Tom Curtis at 00:08 AM on 7 January 2012Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
DB, we are not responding to Mace on the "It's the sun" thread because he has still not properly responded on The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards thread.Response:[DB] Thank you for your guidance, and your efforts. Mace has found compliance with the SkS Comments Policy too onerous & has recused himself from further participation.
-
mace at 23:25 PM on 6 January 2012Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
(-Snip-)Response:[DB] Again, you must finish up what you initiated on the It's the sun thread before you can initiate something on another. What you are doing is trolling. If you persist in this behaviour your posting privileges will be reconsidered.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 22:37 PM on 6 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
citizenschallenge, thanks for posting that transcript; I have very limited access to video. -
John Russell at 21:44 PM on 6 January 2012Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Can I suggest linking to this superb visual metaphor in the article. I'm sure there are other posts where it could also be used effectively. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:43 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan Sorry, I see you did give the quote. However, the quote gives the range of model ensemble means under different scenarios. However this doesn't mean that we would expect the observations to lie within that range, but instead would be within the spread of the multi-model ensemble, which would be very much broader. By saying that the multi-model mean is consistent with current observations, they would mean that they lie within the spread of the ensemble (which they undoubteldy do). -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:36 PM on 6 January 2012Models are unreliable
Tristan wrote "F&R2011 removed a lot of that noise to reveal a fairly constant 0.16/decade trend." You are missing the point. A model that had a slight upward (or indeed downward) curvature would fit the observations almost as well (e.g. in terms of the log likelihood) as the "best estimate" given in F&R2011. That is because there is enough signal in the noise to get a reasonable estimate of the basic trend, but not enough to get a reliable indication of any curvature. "The 4AR predicts that 2011-30 will be +0.64-0.69C vs 1980-99." page reference please. "We won't get there at the current warming rate. Therefore either the warming rate must increase or the projections were too high. Which is it, do we know?" That is impossible to answer without knowing *exactly* what was claimed in AR4.
Prev 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 Next
