Recent Comments

Prev  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  Next

Comments 67051 to 67100:

67051. muoncounter at 13:10 PM on 7 January 2012
       A 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.
67052. Tom Curtis at 12:32 PM on 7 January 2012
       Global 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.
67053. Justinl72 at 12:10 PM on 7 January 2012
       Why 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!
67054. Mond from Oz at 12:01 PM on 7 January 2012
       The 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?
67055. Rob Honeycutt at 10:09 AM on 7 January 2012
       Global 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.
67056. Composer99 at 08:32 AM on 7 January 2012
       Global 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.
67057. Daniel Bailey at 08:29 AM on 7 January 2012
       Global 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.
67058. HK at 08:20 AM on 7 January 2012
       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.
67059. michael sweet at 07:30 AM on 7 January 2012
       Global 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.
67060. apiratelooksat50 at 07:21 AM on 7 January 2012
       Global 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.

67061. Stephen Baines at 06:11 AM on 7 January 2012
       A 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!
67062. Stephen Baines at 06:02 AM on 7 January 2012
       A 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.
67063. Daniel Bailey at 05:30 AM on 7 January 2012
       The 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.
67064. muoncounter at 05:21 AM on 7 January 2012
       A 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.
67065. actually thoughtful at 05:18 AM on 7 January 2012
       The 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.
67066. John Hartz at 05:14 AM on 7 January 2012
       A 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.
67067. Stephen Baines at 05:09 AM on 7 January 2012
       Global 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.
67068. EOttawa at 04:32 AM on 7 January 2012
       Global Warming: Trend and Variation
       What a great video! Will be a wonderful resource when 'debating' with those who confuse one for the other.
67069. Philippe Chantreau at 03:47 AM on 7 January 2012
       Science 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?
67070. stephenthomson at 03:22 AM on 7 January 2012
       Science 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!
67071. Composer99 at 03:02 AM on 7 January 2012
       The 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.
67072. les at 02:04 AM on 7 January 2012
       It'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
67073. muoncounter at 00:40 AM on 7 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       The section in AR4 that Tristan seems to feel is a problem is here.
67074. muoncounter at 00:33 AM on 7 January 2012
       Models 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.
67075. Tom Curtis at 00:08 AM on 7 January 2012
       Increasing 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.

67076. mace at 23:25 PM on 6 January 2012
       Increasing 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.

67077. Eric (skeptic) at 22:37 PM on 6 January 2012
       Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
       citizenschallenge, thanks for posting that transcript; I have very limited access to video.
67078. John Russell at 21:44 PM on 6 January 2012
       Climate 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.
67079. Dikran Marsupial at 21:43 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models 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).
67080. Dikran Marsupial at 21:36 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models 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.
67081. Rob Painting at 20:39 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Tristan I understand the discrepancy you highlight. Are you able to sift through the relevant segments of the IPCC and report back? I find it takes too damn long reading through IPCC reports to find the nugget one is after. So I'm not volunteering.
67082. shakyiamounts101 at 19:52 PM on 6 January 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Well, obviously, Antartica is losing ice due to the fact that our planet is warming up. Just because of the floods, dosent mean thats going to make it gain ice. And even if it gains ice, it will lose that ice anyway. Agreements?
67083. skywatcher at 17:55 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Tristan, it looks like you used the multi-model mean forecast for global temperatures as if it were an exact prediction. Model ensembles don't work that way. If the multi-model mean was projected to be 0.64-0.69, what was the spread of the individual models around that? Some will be lower, some will be higher. How does the current rising trend in global temperature (on the assumption it remains at its recent trend) interact with the ensemble spread? Before you claim incorrectness, you need to know this.
67084. Tom Curtis at 17:09 PM on 6 January 2012
       The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
       There is no cherry picking involved in the "Significant Events in Climate for Nov and Autumn 2011" report. Further, picking just one seasons data from just one country, a common tactic of those in denial, is clearly cherry picking. The appropriate data set is global temperatures, and the effect of global trends can clearly be seen in the recent paper by Hansen et al, 2011: However, those points have been adequately covered above. What I really want to point out is that the chosen data set of those in denial also shows warming. This can clearly be seen by looking at the area between the smoothed line (black dashes) and the 1971-2000 average. Clearly the area above the 1971-2000 average is much greater in more recent years than they where in the early 20th century, indicating an overall positive trend. Indeed, I digitized the data to confirm that. Overall the data shows a positive trend of 0.03 degrees C per decade; and a positive trend of 0.33 degrees C per decade since 1970. It is well known that it is only since 1970 that a clear global warming signal has emerged due to the restricted growth of anthropogenic aerosols since then. Mean Temperature: [Source] So, even a data set especially cherry picked to show no warming in fact clearly shows the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Nothing could more aptly demonstrate the intellectual poverty of climate change denialism.
67085. owl905 at 16:31 PM on 6 January 2012
       The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
       Anthony Watt is busy hustling up votes to get the 'Best Science Blog' victory ... again. It's stunning to think that he could only place 5th in the BS Award, given his target-focus, persistence, and buzz that would make a cottage mosquito green with envy.
67086. owl905 at 16:20 PM on 6 January 2012
       A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
       @Phila - in some disciplines, notably medical research, retractions are not uncommon at all. Retraction Watch is dedicated to the theme. Nature has not only engaged in retractions, but noted the increase and dedicated an article to the theme: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a/box/2.html The ironic part about the attention drawn to the area of climate science is that the most notorious retractions are the Remote Sensing scam of 2011, and the Soon/Baliunis rewrap of 'The Petition' document: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/resignations-retractions-and-the-process-of-science
67087. citizenschallenge at 16:12 PM on 6 January 2012
       Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
       I fully agree with Rob Honeycutt: “Not only is this an excellently produced video but it is a wonderful and balanced encapsulation of the reality of the climate situation and public debate.” I myself was so impressed with what Dr. Schneider said that I’ve decide to transcribe the audio of this video (including time signatures). I do this for my own edification since the process allows me to truly digest the message and I'm posting it because I hope it might be of use to some others. http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/01/stephen-schneider-unauthorized.html
67088. Phila at 15:35 PM on 6 January 2012
       A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
       Also, I'm sure I've said this before, but people who make unsubstantiated claims about things like "the number of papers retracted after the peer review process verified them" really shouldn't be allowed to post any further comments until they support their accusations with hard evidence. If they can't do that, they really shouldn't be allowed to post further comments until they acknowledge being mistaken. If they won't do that, they really shouldn't be allowed to post any further comments, period. I know moderators have their hands full, but this situation where people like James Wilson can indulge in this kind of basically irresponsible behavior, ignore corrections and then move blithely on to the next bit of misinformation is intolerable and really needs to stop. This behavior's at least as socially disruptive as name-calling or political ranting, and far more destructive to the actual purpose of this site. That's what I think, anyway.
67089. Tristan at 15:28 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       (-Snip-) Do I need to state that I don't dispute any of the mechanics of climate change before people here actually read my posts properly? The AR4 is doing the forecasting. Not me. Based on the current rate of warming given by F&R2011 atmospheric temperatures will not reach the 2011-30 mean projected by the AR4. Either the warming must increase or the prediction must fall. My completely unscientific guess is that both of these will be the case. I presume that someone with a lot more knowledge than me can give me more information about this disparity. We are not on track for a mean 2011-30 anomaly of +0.64C versus 1980-99 without a very visible acceleration in warming.
       Response:

       [DB] Improper ideological categorizations snipped.

67090. Phila at 15:22 PM on 6 January 2012
       A Big Picture Look at Global Warming
       James Wilson: Trying to calculate the number of joules retained by the earth is by definition an almost impossible job. The numerical methods to do it might be logically sound but if you understand the math behind it it is similar to multiplying both sides of the equation by zero. The nice things about mathematical arguments like this one is that they can be presented in mathematical terms and then checked for accuracy. In other words, please show your work.
67091. muoncounter at 15:05 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Tristan#465: You're forecasting using the average rate rather than the current rate? Based on this average of all five adjusted data sets, the warming trend has not slowed significantly in recent years (0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade from 2000 through 2010). Either way, what's your point? The thread here is model reliability, not model infallibility. Does pointing out a supposed flaw in an IPCC document somehow nullify AGW?
67092. Tristan at 14:48 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Muon A) The average of the 5 records is .163C/decade, not 0.18C. B) 2030 may be +0.6C compared to 80-99. However, the 4AR states warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C. If the anomaly is currently +0.26 and it reaches +0.6 by 2030, the average will be a lot less than +0.64.
67093. ubrew12 at 14:27 PM on 6 January 2012
       The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
       CBDunkerson@#10 "being visible [i.e. white] is important for aircraft and birds to be able to avoid them" The evidence is that purple is the best color: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320763/Why-painting-wind-turbines-purple-protect-birds-bats.html and DrTsk@#11: "German windmills are sometimes painted dark green at the bottom to blend into the forest" I don't want aircraft to be endangered, but I think white windmills are as much an eyesore as white houses, and wonder if that particular part of their anatomy should be rethought. Thanks for your responses. I don't want to hog this thread with a triviality, however.
67094. CBDunkerson at 14:10 PM on 6 January 2012
       The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
       Doug H wrote: "Can we hope that more evangelical arm-waving anti-science candidates founder quickly?" The press will continue pretending otherwise for a couple more months, but Mitt Romney has essentially wrapped up the GOP nomination at this point. While Santorum got nearly as many votes in the Iowa caucuses that was largely due to a 'last evangelical extremist standing' effect... all the other fervently anti-science candidates had already enjoyed their moment in the spotlight, and had some of their many many flaws exposed thereby. Santorum is getting his turn now, and frankly he's the worst of the lot. He'll be abandoned within a week or two. Perry is already looking for a graceful way to bow out and the other briefly popular candidates likely aren't far behind. As for Romney, he has sung the GOP denial line while chasing the nomination, but in the past he made reasonably sane statements about AGW. He might be a halfway decent president if the congress were controlled by the Democrats. The real danger zone is congress. If the GOP continues to accumulate power there, the U.S. won't do anything worthwhile about global warming (or various other important issues) for many years to come regardless of who wins the presidency. So yeah, the worst of the GOP anti-science brigade are going down... though largely due to other issues. Unsurprisingly, they're irrational and alarming on many other topics as well.
67095. muoncounter at 14:07 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Tristan#461: Here is a map of GISS temperature anomaly for the year 2011, using 1980-1999 as a base period: --source You should note the average anomaly of 0.26C shown in the upper right corner. Using FR2011's linear trend of 0.18C per decade, by 2030 (two decades hence), we could easily see an anomaly (relative to 1980-99) in excess of 0.6C.
67096. Tristan at 14:01 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       what is left to explain? The gap between 0.16 and 0.20.
67097. michael sweet at 13:55 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       Tristan, Thank you for the cite. Since it says "and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades." and the recent Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) paper claims the rate of warming is unchanging, what is left to explain?
67098. muoncounter at 13:55 PM on 6 January 2012
       The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards
       More BS, this time from Newt Gingrich and his man-behind-the-curtain: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has canceled the climate change chapter in his upcoming book of environmental essays after Rush Limbaugh and other commentators targeted its author, atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe. Dr. Hayhoe is a Texas Tech University atmospheric scientist with impeccable science credentials and a Christian faith-based outlook on climate change issues. Apparently even she was too much of a radical. And then came the harassment: Following the December 8 L.A. Times article identifying Hayhoe as a contributor to Gingrich’s book, Marc Morano, former spokesman for Senator Inhofe, spent the past month attacking her on his blog, Climate Depot. Morano also encouraged his readers to contact Hayhoe directly by repeatedly posting her email address. Chris Horner’s American Tradition Institute also filed a request with Hayhoe’s employer, Texas Tech University, requesting any emails she sent or received about the book.
67099. Tristan at 13:41 PM on 6 January 2012
       Models are unreliable
       I'd advise a little caution in making such strong statements, Michael. WG1 Ch10.ES Mean Temperature There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C). Thus, this warming rate is affected little by different scenario assumptions or different model sensitivities, and is consistent with that observed for the past few decades.
67100. Marcus at 13:39 PM on 6 January 2012
       Myth of the Mini Ice Age
       @ Pluvial. *If* I was shown evidence that Fast Breeders could provide *safe*, almost zero-waste energy at low cost, then I might be prepared to accept it (contrary to popular belief, I'm not one of those dyed-in-the-wool anti-nuclear types). Yet all I see being built around the world are Generation III nuclear reactors-which are just your stock-standard light-water reactors. Now that suggests that the Fast-Breeders are either (a) technically or (b) economically non-feasible. Quite frankly, I see no point in going down the nuclear route-not when we've barely touched our vast solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, hydro & biomass energy reserves-not to mention the biggest "energy source", "Negawatts" ;-).

Prev  1334  1335  1336  1337  1338  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  Next