Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 Next
Comments 67101 to 67150:
-
scaddenp at 06:36 AM on 4 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
The "billions" almost all go into satellites. Climate science remuneration (or for that matter any public funded scientist) is not closely tied to their level of funding. You can't spend research funds on fancy living. Not so with misinformation money. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:20 AM on 4 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
DSL, No doubt he woud make a great modern Tartuffe... -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 06:04 AM on 4 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
mreisner, That is significantly more difficult to do due to the complex nature of rainfall and the sparse data coverage of much of the globe. Current statistical technique for analysing trends or change points in the data are, to put it mildly, not very good. -
John Hartz at 05:38 AM on 4 January 2012SkS Weekly Digest #31
Attenborough hits back at claims made by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson that the BBC’s natural history series, Frozen Planet, lacked objectivity. Source: “David Attenborough: Frozen Planet was not alarmist about climate change”, The Guardian (UK), Jan 3, 2012 To access this informative article, click here. -
les at 03:32 AM on 4 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
I kind of had this discussion with a someone on FB just after climetEmailTheft1.0 regarding grants at CRU... I looked at some leaked spreadsheet and was astonished at the low level of funding people where counting as "grand larceny"... especially when you consider that in the UK Universities charge grants <40% overheads, stipends include tax, NI, pensions etc. I've seen better grant capture in many other disciplines - with nothing going into the pockets of academics. Running a unit in a university is both extremely expensive (compared to grant levels available) and highly audited. The only way an academic can end up with some cash is through consultancy (you could easily pay 80% or 100% overheads on that also, before income tax). -
mreisner at 03:30 AM on 4 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Anyone aware of a similar global analysis of "extreme precipitation events?" -
Bob Lacatena at 03:15 AM on 4 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
67, Eric, Agreed. I am disappointed with how quiet and complacent the Democrats have been on climate change, although the current economic fears, exacerbated by the way the Republicans trumpet and prey on those fears, are a big reason. I'm not sure the Dems wouldn't have done more if they had more wiggle room, or that they won't do more during the next administration, when (a) climate change is more obvious and (b) either Obama is in office but no longer facing re-election, or a Republican is in office and the Dems can at least make it into an important issue and force a Republican president or House (or Senate?) to actively and publicly halt legislation. But the fact is that the only way this will really get done is if both parties cooperate. Unfortunately, the current Republican congressmen and women appear to be beholden to business and fossil fuel interests, so it will take something of a cosmic earthquake to shake them into taking the issue seriously. -
DSL at 02:25 AM on 4 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Dawson, you're also ignoring how the money is used. Scientists use money to do science. Organizations such as The Heartland Institute use money to change public opinion and to do so without supporting evidence. That's all they do. Any science these organizations support directly (through funding or publication opportunities) is not meat-(or tofu)-and-potatoes, everyday science; it is scientific or, rather, statistical work attempting to find a rhetorically exploitable weakness in the prevailing theory. If the opposition to the theory of AGW provided an alternative theory that covers the evidence and physics even half as well as AGW, this would be an interesting conversation. There is no such alternative theory, yet some people continue to insist there must be--there must be. What do you call people who believe in a "how things work" that relies on an absent physical mechanism(s) and ignores a range of evidence? Phillipe: Molière would salivate over the deeply hypocritical figure of Wegman and his ripe-for-satire situation. -
John Russell at 02:17 AM on 4 January 2012North American mammal evolution tracks with climate change
@James Wilson #4 Funny, isn't it? Impact by asteroid could be considered by some to be 'alarmist' talk propagated by 'chicken littles'. Yet no one denies their existence or decries the amount that NASA spends every year to track them. Indeed if NASA ever announced the necessity to spend a large sum -- oh, I don't know, 20bn dollars? -- to instigate a programme to intercept and divert or destroy one with, say, a 1% risk of a collision with Earth, would anyone shout, "it's a scam to take taxpayer's money!"? More. -
Chris G at 02:14 AM on 4 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Regarding the Rick Perry reference, I've seen this perceived as an attack on some website or another, and in that way it was distracting. For my own part, like Muoncounter, I perceived it as merely an observation. Atcook27, we are coming to the same conclusion. Bernard J, I have found lots of hits on Hadley cell expansion from Google Scholar, and the Hadley cells define where the jet stream and prevailing winds occur. The impression I've gotten is that we can expect a 2-4 degree of latitude expansion per degree of warming. So, yes, what you are saying is within the realm of possibility. -
CBDunkerson at 00:13 AM on 4 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Given that governor Perry is, tragically, a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination it certainly seems wisest to leave him out of the paper rather than to invite charges of science intruding on the political sphere... though we actually have a constitutional edict that religion not do so which Perry and many others now ignore with impunity. Hansen's findings are extremely powerful and suggest that the trend we have been seeing in new record high temperatures is only the beginning. Based on the 'extremely hot' curves in the graphs above it seems likely that the vast majority of 'highest daily temperature' records for all parts of the globe will be broken within the next 20 years. The increase in 'hot' days has gone largely without notice, but the 'very hot' and 'extremely hot' events have already been attracting attention and if they continue on the slopes shown that is only going to increase. -
Mark Harrigan at 00:05 AM on 4 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
All I can say are two things 1) Oh dear - bad (though not surprising) news. "Extremely Hot (+3σ) occurred over 13%" but "expected only 0.13%". If there was "nothing" going on and it was all "natural variation" what are the chances of such an occurence? Of course if it was just a single year (2010) such an "outlying" event" would be possible (albeit improbable) - but one must also look at the trend since 1980. It's like a heavily loaded dice. Although exactly what you would expect when you see a "normal" distribution of an output/response parameter subjected to a relentless external increase on one of its input driving parameters :( 2) How will the pseudo-skeptics spin this one away?? No doubt they will try and perform their usual feats of logical contortion. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:51 PM on 3 January 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
mace It is pointless to look at the temperatures in one tiny country for one season for evidence ablut global temperature changes. The UK is pretty much the worst place you could choose to look as U.K. temperatures are buffered by the atlantic ocean (as most of our weather comes from the west). If you look at the IPCCs projections for regional temperature change, you will find that the UK is a place where climate change is expected to be rather modest. 30 years is about enough time to blot out most of the natural variability in global temperatures. Longer will be needed for regional and subregional temperatures as the signal to noise ratio is smaller the smaller the region you consider (because the spatial averaging reduces variability just as temporal averaging does). You will always be able to cherry pick some data that seems to suggest a lack of warming, but it is just that, a cherry pick. If you really want to understand the climate of the British Isles, I suggest you read this book on the topic. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:30 PM on 3 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
"Joining Lincoln in pushing for putting off climate legislation until next year are Senators Ben Nelson, D-Neb, Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Kent Conrad, D-N.D."
(http://farmfutures.com/story.aspx/pushing-climate-change-to-next-year-proposed-by-senators-0-30761) It's true that Republicans have pulled ahead of Democrats in science denial and also true that the mechanics of the Senate allow anyone from any party to stop legislation, but I would please ask people not to believe that one party rule will result in effective legislation because it didn't and IMO, it won't. A bipartisan approach is likely to be more effective because it can potentially create a consensus on energy security, industrial policy (stop offshoring CO2 emissions), and similar considerations. -
Mikemcc at 20:45 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
I got an extremely prompt reply from Prof. Hansen. He is working on a revised version without the political commentary. -
Rob Painting at 20:39 PM on 3 January 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Mace - You are probably correct in that a better explanation exists. It is however somewhat counter-intuitive for most. The oceans are by far the largest reservoir of heat on the planet. They cover over 70% of the Earth's surface and over 90% of global warming is going into the oceans. If we consider the ocean depths down to 2000 metres, then global warming has not slowed down at all, just global surface temperatures. It's just that all that heat is building up below the surface layers of the ocean. Basically what the recent Foster & Rahmstorf paper found is that when you eliminate the natural variability, the man-made global warming signal emerges. We have some posts coming up that put this all into perspective. -
mace at 18:01 PM on 3 January 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
I do feel there needs to be a better explanation of why the global mean temperature increase appears to have stalled. If I look at the UK metoffice statistics going back over 100 years now, the graph shows that the winter mean temperature has barely changed over this entire period in the UK. Granted, The other 3 seasons of the year show a marked increase since 1978, but if CO2 is responsible for global warming and climate noise disappears after 30 years, why are UK winters immune to the greenhouse effect? -
Rob Painting at 17:32 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Paul Magnus @ 15 - The Western Australian heat record was very nearly broken in December with 49°C (120F). Don't think I could handle that kind of searing heat. Glad I live in a tiny country at high(ish) latitude surrounded by a vast ocean (NZ). -
chriskoz at 17:25 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Is there any quantification of sigma value in Hansen's paper? I understand, Hansen calculated sigmas locally for each station, as local whether patterns differ at each location. But some average or weighed average value would be interesting to have. For example, how about comparing those Gaussian shifts on figure 3 to the average AGW signal measured by Foster and Rahmstorf and reported here... Hansen average mean shift and Foster and Rahmstorf AGW signal should be pretty much the same if both papers started from the same/similar data and strengthen both conclusions. -
Philippe Chantreau at 17:24 PM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Dawsonjg, your challenge to me is misplaced. You're the one who claimed "billions." Show me the references. Sources, serious ones. Break it down to how much that represents per researcher, per paper, then we can talk. The links I provided contains itself numerous links. Considering that M&M have managed to cough up a couple of papers of little interest over several years, whatever money they got, from whatever source can already be labeled as a waste anyway. McIntyre does not deserve anything remotely comparable to the attention he gets. I'm also waiting for your comment on the computer code from M&M that sorts out upward hockey sticks on top of the pile and saves them as representative samples. How about Wegman copy and paste method? What shall we call that? -
Doug Hutcheson at 16:54 PM on 3 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
John Hartz@59 That declaration by the Cornwell people shows just how dangerous religious fundamentalism can be in the Christian sphere. Islamist fundamentalists threaten death by terrorism; Christian fundamentalists threaten death by species extinction. The difference is only in degree, not kind. Homo Sapiens? I think not. -
Paul Magnus at 16:30 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
This previous post indicates that we have reach some kind of threshold already or are just stepping through one with respect to the sigma events.... http://www.skepticalscience.com/Canada-wildfire-threshold_IMC.html "In our opinion this is a sign that there are also threshold values for forests above which the wildfire regime drastically changes," reports Volker Grimm. "It is likely that the Boreale Plains have in recent decades, particularly around 1980, experienced a change to a system characterised by wildfires. -
JamesWilson at 16:08 PM on 3 January 2012North American mammal evolution tracks with climate change
Watch "Last Day of the Dinosaurs" for how mammals became dominant. As far as I know that hasn't been seriously challenged by anyone. There is plenty in the geological record to show that a meteorite hit on earth caused mammals and eventually humans to become dominant on earth. Put another way boiling most of the earth, followed by two years of cold and darkness caused by the debris cloud *could* be considered a temperature change. But I would consider that a *little* intellectually dishonest. Wouldn't you? I am actually surprised there was any life left after that meteorite hit. There is a theory that life on earth is an anomaly since we should have been blasted back to bacteria a long time ago by a meteorite. ie the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs was small. -
Paul Magnus at 15:48 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Right on que.... Seems like its going to be a regular thing already.... South Australia is sweltering with the hottest start to the year in more than a century as a hot air mass which can sear vegetation moves across the state http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-03/more-power-cuts-possible-as-heatwave-continues/3755802 -
BillWalker at 15:47 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Just an editing note. For a general audience, it would be good if you defined sigma (and maybe even used the word sigma instead of the greek symbol) before using it. I know that it refers to standard deviation, and you know it does, but it's used as such before it's defined. For that matter, you might link to a definition of standard deviation for the statistically uneducated. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:07 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Chris @2 I have my own version for what might wake people up. The 3 Cunard criuse liners, their Queens - Mary, Elizabeth & Victoria - stationary side by side, packed with tourists, On September 15th, surrounded by nothing but open water. At the North Pole. My current bet for that, based on the trends from PIOMass is 2016. -
catamon at 15:04 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Having read the draft of Hansen's website, i'd have to agree with Mikemcc @ 9 regarding the section on Gov Perry. Yup, well founded and i think deserved, but in a scientific paper will give a broad spectrum of the denialatti a hook into dismissing the science. More broadly, having that in could mean that if it gets reported in the MSM it would be for the Perry part, not the findings. -
Phila at 14:49 PM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Also dawsonjg, who do you think is paying these climatologists to promote AGW? Governments? If so, can you explain why so many of these same governments have been steadfastly ignoring or downplaying the findings of their bought-and-paid-for experts? While handsomely subsidizing the extraction industries, no less? For that matter, why couldn't these global conspirators get meaningful emissions cuts passed during the eight years when their alleged ringleader Al Gore was in the White House? The payoff for all the expense, lawbreaking and secret bullying it'd take to create a phony scientific consensus seems pretty paltry to me, no matter who's footing the bill. Let's look at things realistically. You've got the oil industry, which is one of the most profitable businesses in the world, pumping huge amounts of money into government, media and pro-industry thinktanks. That's not subject to dispute. You've also got governments downplaying or ignoring scientific concerns relating to AGW. You've got hard-right politicians threatening to prosecute high-profile climate scientists like Michael Mann. And you've got large media outlets that tend to blur the distinction between, say, Lord Monckton and mainstream climate scientists. And yet, despite all of these phenomena -- which are actually demonstrable and quantifiable -- many people still believe that someone's paying scientists all over the world "billions" to advance a theory in which the laws of physics cause the climate to behave in pretty much the way that those laws predict. For reasons no one actually knows, on the basis of evidence no one actually has. And in this narrative, amazingly, it's the climate scientists who are bullies and ideologues; the powerful interests who are casually slandering them as incompetents, frauds or worse are somehow their victims. The theory that certain industries have spent a large amount of money to manipulate opinion for their own benefit is consistent with all of the phenomena I've brought up here. The theory that someone or other has been paying climatologists to support AGW for some nefarious reason or other is incoherent, in addition to being totally unsupported by evidence. If you disagree, I'd love to know why. -
muoncounter at 14:38 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Mikemcc, You are referring to this statement in Hansen, Sato and Ruedy: "I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on those days for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal way of life." Science cannot disprove the possibility of divine intervention. However, there is a relevant saying that "Heaven helps those who help themselves." This is a purely factual reference to a real event. How is that an attack? -
atcook27 at 14:21 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
ChrisG I'm no expert but I think that you're correct. The worlds deserts appear at the base of the hadley cell. The cells descending dry air creates them. As the world gets warmer the hadley cells get more intense and move towards the poles. The real problem is that the most furtile land on the planet lies just poleward of the base of the hadley cell. So as GW gets more intense the planets food bowl gets more adversely affected. -
Mikemcc at 14:10 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
A terrific(if sobering)paper that quantifies an arguement that I have been having for a couple of years now. That a shift in a mean value has a disproportionate effect on the incidence of extreme events. I have e-mailed Prof. Hansen though to ask if he would remove the attack on Gov. Perry prior to publishing the paper. While the attack is well founded, it is not really well placed in the paper, it just gives deniers an opening to attack the paper whilst ignoring the science. -
Bernard J. at 14:07 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
I'm glad to see that the baseline issue was raised, because I have been concerned that the practice of 'rolling' baselines permits absolute temperature changes due to human carbon dioxide emissions to be disguised. Hansen has long explained why he uses the period he does (as KeenOn350 explained in turn) and I hope that future climatological analyses might be urged to use Hansen's approach wherever possible. On another matter, does anyone know off-hand how many separate long-term analyses there are of latitude shift of the prevailing westerlies? I'm curious to know if in future we will have the "Roaring Fifties-are-the-New-Forties"... -
catamon at 13:58 PM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
"Even so,it is biased a bit high, as our CO2 emissions were already having an effect, especially in the 1970's!" Oh your just full of good news aren't you. This seems to me to be a pretty "simple" analysis (albeit of lots of data) in concept, and the way the graphs are presented should make the conclusions easy to communicate (which is enormously important) to the public. Will be interesting to the reaction when its published. Anyone want to make bets on how controversial this paper will be since up till now anyone attributing an extreme event to AGW has been (maybe with reason?) accused of mixing up weather and climate. What this paper seems to me to do is "plot" climate changes over time, and "oh looky" some of what we see from that correlates with the observed "weather". Thats going to be a powerful thing to take to the ongoing debate. [inflammatory snipped]Moderator Response: [Rob P] If you have something worthwhile to say about the science please say it. Needlessly inflammatory comments are frowned upon here, and contravene the comments policy. -
muoncounter at 13:16 PM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Rob H, And there sure are a lot of these so-called 'think' tanks. The denial business must be berry-berry good. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:11 PM on 3 January 2012Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
@ dalyplanet"Tisdale has a very interesting rebuttal to this paper at WUWT today."
Methinks someone has an "interesting" definition of "rebuttal". -
John Hartz at 13:06 PM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
dawsonjg: What is the basis of your assertion that climate scientists have received billions of dollars in renumerations? -
dalyplanet at 12:56 PM on 3 January 2012Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal
Tisdale has a very interesting rebuttal to this paper at WUWT today. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:38 AM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
dawsonjg... Think tanks pay some heavy coin. [link] You might note that almost all the lead AGW skeptics have think tank positions. Spencer, Michaels, Lindzen, etc. -
Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
dawsonjg - I have to say that your posts have been a fascinating review of many of the popular myths of climate denial, with this most recent one being that somehow climate scientists would make money falsifying data in some huge conspiracy. Once again you have demonstrated that you are not a publishing scientist, as anyone in the field knows how silly an accusation that is. The fame and position in science go to those who publish solid data that stands out in the field as being objectively correct. Those caught falsifying or plagiarizing data (Wegman), publishing poorly written or clearly incorrect papers (McIntyre, Spencer), or just making fantastical stuff up (Gerlich and Tscheuschner) receive no rewards in the field of science. The risk, the downside to writing bad papers or falsifying data - that's huge. The rewards may indeed include being able to get additional grants, or rather having a slightly higher percentage of your grant applications go through - success breeds success. But please note that grants do not tend to increase the income of the scientists involved. Very few practicing scientists are in the upper 1% income levels... On the other hand, if you wish to write advocacy papers for particular industries (Tobacco Institute, Clean Coal, Exxon, etc.), promoting a position that is not based on the science but is instead thinly disguised propaganda contrary to facts (Michals, Singer, Soon), you can get a lot of $$$ for it in "consulting fees". This is apparently driven by the billions in profits that some industries see at risk if they have to change their course of business. This is not to say that someone writing from an "advocacy" position will always write worthless stuff - but you have to consider the motivation behind it, and judge the material accordingly. -
EOttawa at 11:22 AM on 3 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
First, I suggest that the links to myths be moved below the embedded video. Possibly as the last thing in the article. I don't think this video is intended to dispell particular myths, but it does speak to multiple audiences. I think it does an excellent job of framing climate change as a wicked problem and of illustrating key tactics used by those who don't want the public to take action on it. It is honest in its recognition that there are distortions at both ends of the spectrum (I assume, an acknowledgement of Dr. Schneider's famous quote that is so often misrepresented) I think it should arm laypersons with some honest skepticism to help distinguish between those who are part the cacophony and those who are real musicians. Overall, very little time is given to repeating the myths. The video is bookended with several perfect sound bites, starting with "You couldn't add 4 Watts of energy over every square metre and have nothing happen!" For me, the strongest soundbite was: "So our behaviour in the next generation could precondition a sustainability issue for a millenium - or ten - based upon the convenience of one species for one generation. I find that a very morally daunting prospect." Dr. Schneider's passing was a great loss, and if this video inspires more climate scientists to 'take back the airwaves', then it is worth its weight in gold. And if this video doesn't do so, then perhaps the 'climate scientists rap' video would :) -
dawsonjg at 10:48 AM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
Thanks for the interesting advice guys. Philippe says: 'As usual, with often touted "billions in climate research," fake skeptics make heavy use of the method that consist of accusing others of what they themselves do.' Do I take it from that that billions have been funding 'fake skeptics'? I know about the often touted few million from Exon and McIntyre's travelling expenses, but who pays the rest to whom? That FF gravy train sounds interesting Rob, what's that all about? No innuendo, I'd really like to know. -
Michael at 10:28 AM on 3 January 2012North American mammal evolution tracks with climate change
http://crisisoflife.net/the-threat.html -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:17 AM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
If dawson is going to bring up the "corrupted by the money" argument, I'd have to suggest that main stream climate scientists are not real smart on that aspect (no offense). If they want to get on the real gravy train they should publish work vigorously rejecting AGW and land themselves a lucrative FF funded think tank position. The money researchers make doing actual research is a penny ante game. I would suggest that nearly all climate researchers are motivated merely by the desire to learn more and get things right. -
KeenOn350 at 09:59 AM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Mace @ 7:22 I agree that consistent baseline periods would be nice, but to some extent they depend on available data. Without reference to sources ( I think there is mention of this in some of Hansen's material): - 30 years is considered by most climatologists to be the necessary minimum period for a good climatological baseline - Hansen normally uses the period 1951 - 1980 as being the 30-year period farthest back in time, for which there is adequate available data, in enough different parts of the globe, to establish a meaningful baseline. Even so,it is biased a bit high, as our CO2 emissions were already having an effect, especially in the 1970's! DaveW -
Nick Palmer at 09:50 AM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
dawsonjg wrote: But consider who controls the billions of dollars poured into climate research Ah, the old they've-been-corrupted-by-the-money line. Desperate hand waving. Just for once try looking at the development of climate science. The basic physics were sorted by the 60s, 50 years ago, yet it took until the 80s before the world at large took notice and realised that we could face a very risky future. Only then did the "billions" get ploughed in - after it became clear that we needed a helluva lot more research pronto. Yet denialists portray the situation as if the money had been available up front before any conclusions were drawn and they imply or even state that climate scientists decided to make a grab for it by manufacturing fake science. Somebody should sue these nasty minded traducers for libel.Moderator Response: [Rob P] all caps changed to bold font. No all caps in the future thanks. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:44 AM on 3 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
apirate @ 27... Are you capable of applying the same standards of discipline to the economic aspects of the issues? The knife cuts both ways. I find that most people who choose to reject AGW do so first out of an emotional response to the idea of taxing carbon. After that they are merely looking for confirmation of the conclusion they prefer. -
Phila at 08:49 AM on 3 January 2012Tree-rings diverge from temperature after 1960
dawsonjg: What Mann does is not [science] at its best. Before this goes any further, let's get one thing clear. You've acknowledged that working with Mann's data is beyond your capabilities. You've also conceded in #35 that you lack the necessary skills to judge which side's arguments are scientifically sound. It logically follows that you lack the knowledge to critique Mann's work. And from there, it follows that you have absolutely no right to accuse him of bad scientific practice, let alone anything worse. That being the case, perhaps you should show a bit of humility and tone down your rhetoric. Take yourself out of the equation for a moment and think about this in abstract terms. Suppose that on the one hand, lots of respected scientists in a variety of countries and fields have used a variety of methods to arrive at results that basically agree with one another. And suppose that on the other hand, a guy who doesn't understand these disciplines or these methods decides that their conclusions are possibly or probably wrong because he saw a website that attacked one of them. Logically speaking, what's more likely: That all these scientists made errors that somehow turned out to agree with each other? That all these scientists put aside their professional rivalries and personal morality in order to falsify mountains of evidence over generations for some unknown purpose? Or that the guy who doesn't understand the science is easy to mislead? On the Internet, there are sites explaining that the AIDS virus doesn't exist, that chemotherapy is deadlier than cancer, that the Holocaust never happened, that vaccines don't work and that evolution is mathematically impossible. The arguments sometimes sound plausible, and the authors are sometimes actual experts in the relevant fields. They usually have no problem citing instances of "official suppression" of their work, not least because their followers usually can't appreciate the distinction between "suppressed" and "thoroughly debunked countless times" or "correctly viewed by experts as the work of a crazy person." And they usually have no problem coming up with plausible motives for conspiracy, because money and power are at stake in just about any field you can name. I'm sure you know all of this as well as I do, and I'm also willing to bet that you side confidently with the scientific consensus on most or all of these "controversies." So why do you feel justified in throwing that perfectly rational approach out the window here? If you really want to get to the bottom of this argument, that's the first question you need to address, I'd say. Challenging Mann's work before you've even begun to understand it -- let alone all the work done subsequently -- is like showing up for the Tour de France on a plastic tricycle and expecting to win. -
John Hartz at 08:27 AM on 3 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Suggested reading: “Portraits of the Southwest in the Shadow of Drought.”New York Times, Dec 26, 2011 This article reviews two recently published books: 1. “A Great Aridness : Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest” by William deBuys, a conservationist based in New Mexico; and, 2. “Bird on Fire: Lessons from the World's Least Sustainable City” by Andrew Ross, a social scientist at New York University. -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:04 AM on 3 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Phila at 24 I don't agree with your statement about emotion being feminine and foolish. It's human nature. Science should be about the scientific method and facts. Passion for your discipline is necessary, but emotion should be reserved for children and puppies. -
scaddenp at 07:46 AM on 3 January 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
Perhaps you could highlight a case where you found it confusing. For the purpose of determining trends and changes in the record, it doesnt matter what baseline you use. It only changes the zero.
Prev 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 Next
