Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 Next
Comments 67451 to 67500:
-
John Russell at 23:53 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
I should say straight off that I'm a film-maker myself of 40 years experience. I found the second half of the film to be much more effective than the first half. I don't believe it's right to give airtime to deniers claiming 'the debate is not over' and the like; except in the context of smoking, where it was very powerful to show those clearly ridiculous presenters holding cigarettes claiming that there are scientific papers denying the link between inhaling tobacco smoke and cancer. I don't like the use of fantastical, graphically-enhanced 'scare' composites showing -- for example -- barefooted children standing on parched, cracked mud with smoke rolling over them in an orange landscape. I do like the use of real documentary footage of melting glaciers, deforested river valleys, flooded towns and drought-ravaged crops. I do not support the use of text-based documents as cutaways where one's attention is split between what is read and what is being said: the viewer takes in neither. VO should always repeat exactly what is being shown as text so that it emphasises the text rather than fighting it. Emotive music should be used sparingly for emphasis -- not as wallpaper. Less is more. Generally I found this film to be a good tribute to a great man; Stephen Schneider. Do I think it could have made better use of the material it contained? Yes. I would have cut around 2 minutes out of it, tightened it and made it more factual and less emotive in places. I would have looked for more very short clips of politicians and presenters in denial clearly making obviously ideological personal attacks and avoided anything that could sound reasonable to the ignorant. The phrase "the debate is not over", should be avoided at all costs. It just sounds too bloody reasonable to those with no understanding of the subject. I would have cut out all references to Schneider's quote about the two extreme views and their improbability; especially as it was juxtaposed alongside some apocalyptic graphics -- like the one with the child -- that seem to contradict his statement. Keep the message clear and simple. It always works best. Hope that helps. -
catamon at 22:02 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
I think what struck me was the calm way he pointed out that: "The end of the world and what’s good for you are the two lowest probability outcomes" That's very true, makes sense (particularly in the fire-insurance context in which it was used), but i can just see some of those who claim to be "Skeptics" latching onto this comment as: "Reputable Scientist Recants and Refutes CAGW!!" with the quote re-written as: "The end of the world, lowest probability outcome" All in all i think the vid is a fine piece and a good attempt at communicating where the issue is, broadly, at the moment. -
OPatrick at 21:40 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Sorry for stirring things up there Rob (P). I've deliberately only watched this through once and whilst I thought the video was spot on, for me, I am left with two strong impressions from it - one is the 'CO2 is good for you' advert and the other the is that there are two equally wrong extremes in the climate debate, catastrophe and 'good for you'. I can see how these could be the two messages that someone who hasn't previously engaged with the debate could take away from watching it. We all know that advertising works at some level, I don't like cola but when I'm hot and thirsty and see a cold can of coke I still hear a little animal part of my brain saying "buy it". I also think the "The end of the world and what’s good for you are the two lowest probability outcomes" message is the wrong one, it sets up a false equivalence. For a start, whilst they may be equally probable they shouldn't have equal impacts on our decision making. Even if there is only a minute chance of truly catastrophic outcomes this is still significant, whilst a tiny chance that we will see some improvement in our lives cannot balance out the risks of serious impacts. But I also think it doesn't fairly reflect the significance given to the two extremes. On the one hand we have people standing up in congress saying increased CO2 will be beneficial, but you have to dig up obscure video footage of a known controversialist to hear the other extreme. -
Bert from Eltham at 17:40 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
The inertia or time lag or whatever you want to call it for heating a whole planet and we are just measuring it now is something that really scares me. The final equilibrium will be far worse than we can even predict. It is sad that small minds grasp the tiniest straw to boost their false beliefs. The fence sitters have been conned by very dark forces. It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation about Global Warming with people who wake up in the morning and it is 15C and by lunchtime it gets to 37C. The glazed eyes are the give away. Bert -
Tom Curtis at 17:06 PM on 1 January 2012Hockey stick is broken
Readers should note that Doug Cotton has been banned from commenting at SkS for repeated and deliberate violations of the comments policy. He continues violate the policy by posting under pseudonyms and has, I believe, his comments deleted as a result without any regard to their particular content. He is now claiming on his website that his posts are being deleted because we cannot refute his arguments. That is a lie. His arguments where considered fully and resoundingly rebutted previously on SkS as they also have on Science of Doom (where he has also been banned for repeated violation of comments policy). I note that there is no posting permitted on his website. By his logic that lack of permission to post an argument means the argument cannot be refuted, his refusal to allow comments is sufficient proof that his arguments have been refuted. Less facetiously, if anyone believes there is any credibility to Doug Cotton's arguments, by all means present them on an appropriate thread, and in compliance with the comments policy. I enjoy shooting sitting ducks. -
Tom Curtis at 16:51 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
With indulgence from the moderator, one small additional point. The 1966 guesstimate by Lamb much loved by deniers shows a 1.5 degree C difference between LIA and MWP, and hence shows to great a difference. As the LIA estimate is anchored by (an admittedly local) instrumental record, the conclusion must be that he overestimated the MWP warmth by about 0.5 degrees C, exactly as shown by MBH 99.Moderator Response: Really, everybody please pick one of the several more relevant threads. -
Tom Curtis at 16:45 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg @25, this is venturing into of topic territory so any further discussion on this point should be taken to another thread. For the record, it is possible to use the CO2 content of the atmosphere as a a measure of globally integrated sea surface temperature so long as net emissions are not large (ie, prior to the preindustiral era). Therefore based on the approximately 12 ppm difference in CO2 concentration between the peak of the MWP and the Maunder Minimum, there was approximately a 1 degree C difference in temperature between those times. On that basis, Moberg 2005 is likely to be a more accurate reconstruction than either Mann 2008 EIV or Mann 2008 CPS (where EIV and CPS refer to different reconstruction methods applied to the same data). However, as the following chart shows, the difference between the methods is small:
Based on that estimate, Moberg 2005 and Ljungqvist 2010 are both reasonably accurate. Mann 2008 EIV probably slightly overestimates MWP temperatures and LIA temperatures. Mann 2008 CPS is probably closer than the EIV result for the MWP but overestimates LIA temperatures. None of these estimates are certain enough to be considered the last word, however, all of them show MWP temperatures lower than 21st century (and late 20th century) temperatures. Given margins of error, it is possible but improbable that individual decades in the MWP were warmer than the the first decade of the 21st century. It is slightly more probable, but not very that some individual years in the MWP where warmer than the warmest years of the late 20th and early 21st century (1998, 2005, 2007, and 2010).
Any further discussion should be here.
-
Daniel Bailey at 16:41 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Indeed, Tom. In your words I am minded of those by Martin Niemöller:First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
In his continued prosecution of his agenda, dawsonjg shows his disinterest in the science in favor of ideology. So we must needs continue to continually debunk these selfsame tired memes for what they truly are: empty and vacuous dissembling. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:40 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Yup. Sorry for the confusion. I mean MBH99. I promise, it was the champaign talking!Moderator Response: [JH] We presume that you meant "champagne." -
Tom Curtis at 16:31 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Rob, I'm sure you meant Man Bradley and Hughes (MBH 99 rather than McIntyre and McKitrick (2001 MM). (I know your not confused, but I don't want casual readers to be confused by a mistype.) McIntyre and McKitrick's papers were in 2003 and 2005 (from memory). -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:28 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg... It seems to me there are a plethora of reconstructions to choose from. No one study is going to be absolute but you can be pretty sure that if you have nearly a dozen projects returning very similar results that you've got a pretty robust conclusion. -
dawsonjg at 16:07 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Thanks Tom, since I must move on from Mann 1998, might I enquire about Mann 2008? Is it your conviction that during the intervening decade the wrinkles were ironed out and the new improved hockey stick got it pretty right?Moderator Response: As I told you earlier, there is a more appropriate thread. Use it. -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:52 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg... One of the things people neglect to acknowledge about the 2001 MM graph is that it is just a 1000 year reconstruction. It does not eliminate the MWP but rather starts in the middle of the MWP. What disinformers have done is to focus on all the local temperature records that show the MWP warmer today, but ignoring the local records that show a MWP cooler than today, especially avoiding the records that show the records that are opposite sine from the MWP/LIA. What I continually point out is the fact that the "skeptics" of the hockey stick have never managed to produce a multi-proxy reconstruction that shows anything other than a hockey stick. -
Tom Curtis at 15:45 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg @42, the following chart shows three reconstructions. The first in dark red is MBH 99, which was shown to underestimate centennial variability. The second from Esper et al 2002 (dark blue) used a method which is known to overestimate variability. Finally, the last is from Mann et al 2008 (Orange), and is typical of modern reconstructions:
As you can see, there is far more agreement between MBH 99 and the other two reconstructions during the MWP than there is during the LIA. So while there is some justification for saying MBH 99 eliminated the LIA, there is no justification for saying it eliminated the MWP.
For completeness, some modern reconstructions (including the Mann 2008 EIV method) show MWP temperatures 0.3 degrees C warmer than those shown by MBH 99 (and Mann et al 2008 CPS method). The fact that the use of two different but justifiable methods on the same data can result in that 0.3 C difference shows that reconstructions in that era are uncertain. But 0.3 C above MBH 99 (0.2 C above the mid 20th century baseline) is still 0.3 C less than modern temperatures.
Finally, I am unimpressed by deniers saying that in order to move on we just need to accept unjustified slanders against Michael Mann. The story about how they first came for the Jews comes to mind. If we allow unjustified slanders to stand against Mann, and cut him loose; deniers will just turn to their next target.
Nor are we defending any "sainthood" of Mann. MBH 98 and 99 had flaws, as has been shown by genuine scientific critiques, including by Mann himself. But I am not going to let lies about him stand just for the convenience of deniers who continue to make accusations without substantive evidence.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:16 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
It's even bizarre to me that a person can completely gloss over the "cacophony of conflicting voice" backed by fossil fuel interests and instead land on "5m sea level rise." -
jyyh at 15:16 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
I don't understand this 'fence-sitter' issue at all. Either you think, believe or know that ice will melt at temperatures of over 32F (0C) or you don't. In the latter case you either deny the existence of agreed temperature scales, physical reality, or the conservation of mass in regular thermodynamics, mechanics or chemistry. Maybe this is too bluntly said, so feel free to delete this if it's outside the policy here. -
dawsonjg at 15:15 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
The 2001 hockey stick did not simply imply that the Current Warm Period is slightly warmer than the MWP scaddenp, it eliminated the MWP. That got it wrong. (-Snip-).Response:[DB] It has been pointed out to you a number of times now that both Mann and the science have moved on, that the "hockey stick" has been replicated in multiple reconstructions and in virtually every single temperature series and metric. Now it is time to move this dialogue on; you beat a dead horse.
Overheated rhetoric snipped.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:12 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Hank @ 3... You would have to be working very hard to avoid Schneider's message if "5m of sea level rise" was your take-away. He clearly states that... "End of the world and good for you are the two least likely outcomes." But the issue with sea level rise is in relation to tipping points. He states that we know that those tipping points are there, yet we don't know where they are. We might not know when we've crossed one of those tipping points for 50 years. He's talking about the world we are bequeathing to later generations. -
Tom Curtis at 15:05 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg @39, the defamatory campaign against Michael Mann does not simply say he was wrong. They accuse him of deliberate fraud. Indeed, googling "Michael", "Mann", "fraud", "MWP" turns up 2,390,000 hits so the campaign is extensive. Further, McIntyre did not just say Mann was wrong. Searching his site for "Mann", "Fraud" turns up 32 articles. And, quite frankly, you did not just say that Mann was wrong. Your original, and demonstrably false, claim was that Mann had defamed McIntyre. There is no point coming over all coy and innocent. The corpse is on the floor, the blood is all over you and the knife is in your hands. As demonstrated by Caerbannog above and elsewhere in this site, McIntyre's criticisms of Mann have been poorly grounded, false or based on invalid statistics. Despite that, they have resulted in endless accusations of fraud, death threats, two congressional ordered inquiries and endless efforts to defame Mann of which yours is just the latest. -
Rob Painting at 14:06 PM on 1 January 2012Hockey stick is broken
Muon, it was Doug Cotton again. What's that his 6th or 7th fake identity?Response:[DB] Sorry guys. Just fingered him & took action.
-
muoncounter at 14:01 PM on 1 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
Robert Murphy#63: "the Democrats still have a hard argument claiming lack of power in the Senate" Nonsense. The filibuster is the Republican Party's Golden Ticket to obstructionism.
And let's not forget about the magic 'hold' that any one Senator can put on pending legislation and nominations to fill what are essentially non-political, administrative jobs.
a particularly egregious case was when Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) placed secret holds on 70 of President Obama's nominations to win terms more favorable to his state on an Air Force contract to build aerial refueling tankers.
One man, one vote went the way of the flintlock musket. Call this 'tyranny of the minority'.
-
scaddenp at 13:48 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
"Got it wrong" is not correct. There is a hockey stick. The methodology is fundamentally correct. It was not warmer in the MWP. The assertion that you can make a hockey stick with any data is using Mann's original method is wrong. Mann's original method could indeed be improved and the science moves on as it does in so many other areas. McIntyre however does not move on, and nor do supporters - it seems pretty obvious why not to me. -
Tom Curtis at 13:43 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Hank @3, it would help if you provided the time index of claims so that people can find them easily to discuss the issues. In this case, I believe the claim you are discussing starts at 9 minutes and 5 seconds. As it happens the last time the Earth was 1-2 degrees Celsius warmer than its current level for sustained periods (the Eemian) global sea levels were 5-7 meters higher than current levels. Business as usual will make us 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than current levels by 2100 and sustain higher temperature for hundreds if not thousands of years. The last time CO2 concentrations equaled their current levels, sea levels where about 25 meters above current levels. Five meters of sea level rise is highly unlikely in this century, but if we do not take action, five meters of sea level rise or more is inevitable. That is simply what the science says. I think the "coach" lost you simply because you never wanted to play. -
Tom Curtis at 13:24 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
I think anyone tempted to believe any of the climate change myths on the video ought to realize that those myths are based on keeping a blind eye on the data, careful cherry picking and in some cases out right lies. It is, in Schneider's words:"... people selecting things out of context, and then you end up with the end of the world versus its good for you."
(2:30 in the video) It would be as sensible to believe "its good for you" as it would to believe "end of the world" scenarios such as claims that the Earth will enter a Venus style runaway green house effect, with the Oceans boiling, and all life on Earth ending. As Schneider says,"The end of the world and what’s good for you are the two lowest probability outcomes"
(3:30 in the video) The should also recognize that some of the "cacophony of conflicting voices" are paid by industry, a point brought home by the funding of one of the denier messages on the video by "by Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, Hunt Oil, Lyco Energy Corporation, and Five States Energy Corporation." I strongly recommend anyone with inquiries about the various myths mentioned in the video read the appropriate posts as linked above, and then comment there. Of the "end of the world myths" this might be an appropriate page to start. -
dawsonjg at 13:22 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Saying Mann got is wrong (as some of you acknowledge) is denigrating him dhogaza? Hounding him? Denigrating him? But accusing McIntyre of being part of an industry financed defamation campaign because he might be paid travelling expenses to speak at conferences that might receive donations from industry is fair cop? -
hank_ at 13:20 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
There's a saying in football, when the coach's message begins to lose credibility with the players, they say he has "lost the locker room". For me that point was reached in the video when he started talking about 5 meter sea level rise and runaway global warming. The answer to overcoming skepticism and regaining control of the dialogue is not more over-the-top catastrophic predictions! This has been proven time and again over the years. While this video may be comfortable and reassuring for some, it will not win over the casual fence-sitters in the crowd. And those are people we should be trying to bring to the table now. H. -
dhogaza at 12:34 PM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
And consider that perhaps your comments are more relevant to those threads than this one.
I think dawsonjg's comment is relevant to this thread in the sense that it is a great illustration of how some people are perfectly willing to denigrate Mann despite demonstrating that they know little or nothing about the science ... -
Robert Murphy at 12:30 PM on 1 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
Scratch #63, at least to the extent I forgot about the filibusterer; I was thinking of the veto. That being said, the Democrats still have a hard argument claiming lack of power in the Senate. The way committees are set up, things are stacked in their favor. -
Robert Murphy at 12:24 PM on 1 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
muoncounter, #62: "however, the peculiar rules of that august body require 60 votes out of 100 (rather than a simple majority) to get just about anything done." That's true when the party in the White House is different from the party in the Senate. That's not the case now. If the Democrats had solidarity it wouldn't matter what the Republicans voted in the Senate. It's a bipartisan failure. -
OPatrick at 12:19 PM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
Rob Painting is strongly critical of this video, at Deltoid: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/keith_kloors_thinking_on_clima.php#comment-6203064 On balance I think I would agree with him - does it not go against much of the advice given in the Debunking Handbook? For many people, all they are looking for is enough doubt to carry on living their lives as they are. Repeating some common myths, and even showing them in the same manipulative ways they are propogated, without quashing them explicitly and emphatically seems to risk providing that hint of doubt.Moderator Response: [Rob P] Whoops, vented my spleen a bit there. SkS is a collective effort and, in regard to screening this video, I was on the side outvoted. In hindsight I should have kept my opinions private instead of taking umbrage over at Deltoid. Regardless of the merits of the video, Steve Schneider was a 'bit of a legend' as we say here downunder. -
scaddenp at 11:38 AM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
dawsonjg - noone is disputing that the original Mann paper has flaws and has been improved but the cross-proxy method that the paper pioneered is the norm now. What modern reconstruction is there that eliminates the hockey stick? -
dawsonjg at 10:50 AM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
So Mann became an internationally acclaimed hero for producing a hockey stick graph for the 2001 IPCC report that eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age and showed an unprecedented 20th century rise in temperature; then McIntyre claimed at climate denial conferences that Mann was wrong to eliminate the MWP and LIA, which amounted to industry funded defamation. But McIntyre and the denialists who paid his travel expenses didn't know what they were talking about. Have I got it now? But hang on a minute - hasn't the MWP and LIA reappeared in subsequent IPCC reports?Moderator Response: The Medieval Warm Period is discussed in the Skeptical Science argument "Medieval Warm Period was warmer." The Little Ice Age is discussed in "We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age." Please read both of those posts to learn, before you comment more. And consider that perhaps your comments are more relevant to those threads than this one. -
muoncounter at 10:27 AM on 1 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
It appears our friends at Republicans for Environmental Protection don't have much clout in the Republican-led House of Representatives. How bad was 2011 for America’s wildlife, air, water, land and public health? After taking 191 anti-conservation votes, even the House of Representatives’ own members called it ”the most anti-environment House in the history of Congress.” Non US readers may have heard that the Democratic Party controls the US Senate. Indeed, there is a slight Democratic majority; however, the peculiar rules of that august body require 60 votes out of 100 (rather than a simple majority) to get just about anything done. Since most Republican Senators vote 'nyet' as a bloc, nothing gets done. It may not be a good system, but its the only one we've got. Nah, its not a good system. -
muoncounter at 10:18 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
pirate#16, Let us not forget that Jeff Masters names 2011 "The Year of the Tornado". For slight trends, I'll see your 'slight downward trend' with this slight upwards trend:
-- source Masters, above
As far as "humans have adapted to better survive these extreme weather events," if you call better building codes adaptation, I suppose so.
An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.
Building codes? That's a form of government regulation. Can't have that.
-
caerbannog at 09:50 AM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Tom Curtis at 11:34 AM on 31 December, 2011 caerbannog @12, would you please write that comment up as an article that can be posted on SkS. Ideally you should have two versions. Got a bit of a full plate right now, but will get started on putting together an article when I find some free time (hopefully within the next couple of weeks or so).Moderator Response: It might be better as a modification of the existing "Hockey stick is broken." A mention in the Basic version, an expansion in the Intermediate section, and the full expansion in the Advanced version. (Only the Basic version exists right now, so other authors could pitch in to add the material other than yours for the two new versions.) -
scaddenp at 09:32 AM on 1 January 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
peacetracker - proxies that are records of local temperature have to be treated as just that. Getting a worldwide temperature has to involve multiple proxies rather like trying to construct GISS from an extremely limited no. of stations. There are some global indicators however - eg oxygen isotopes from seawater organisms reflect the amount of global ice. However time resolution isnt much good for small wiggles like MCA,LIA. However, there are non-quantitative proxies (like glacial advance or retreat) that help indicate whether a proxy is likely to valid for a large region. The importance of paleoclimate is to constrain and test models. If the models are correctly reflecting real physics then estimated forcings acting at the time (which often have to be determined from another kind of proxy) should be compatiable with temperature proxies at the same time. -
scaddenp at 09:20 AM on 1 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
A Rocha is active in NZ with a no-nonsense approach to climate change as this. Backed by evangelical luminaries like John Stott and Eugene Peterson. -
John Hartz at 09:14 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
A massive tornado outbreak between April 25 and 28 of this year (2011) spanned five states in the southeastern United States. The deadliest day was on April 27, when 122 tornadoes killed 316 people across parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia. Fifteen of the reported tornadoes were deemed “violent,” meaning they ranked 4 or 5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale. This outbreak is the third deadliest in U.S. history, and it contributed to 2011 being tied as the second deadliest tornado year on record. In addition to the death toll, more than 2,400 people were injured and the area experienced more than $4.2 billion in property loss. Source: “NOAA's National Weather Service completes assessment of historic tornado outbreak - 2011 tied as second deadliest tornado year in U.S. history”, NOAA News Release, Dec 20, 2011 To access the complete NOAA news release, click here. -
Rob Painting at 09:09 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Pirate - So according to the second graph (US tornado deaths) and your reasoning, US citizens in the early 1990's were more advanced, had increased knowledge and better construction techniques than the 'noughties?' Do you have links to any studies that support your claim? I don't doubt that it is partially right, but intuition is hardly science. As for rating of tornado strength. Peer-reviewed studies have looked at the record and found it pretty unreliable. Can you inform us how tornadoes have been categorized over time? -
John Hartz at 08:55 AM on 1 January 2012A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
What makes dealing with climate change so difficult (for Americans)? "Nobody wants to feel bad about the future. Everybody wants to be hopeful." The nation was settled by "insanely hopeful immigrants," Otto said, and Americans still have a strong sense of opportunity, including the idea that hard work pays off and that people get what they deserve. "It doesn't mean that we're bad or stupid. It just means that it's just hard. It's hard to get our minds around and embrace, because it means maybe we've screwed up somehow and nobody wants to feel that way. But the great thing about Americans is that because of that hopefulness, once we get through this painful process of self-reflection ... then we really kick it in and we can solve problems like nobody else." -- Shawn Lawrence Otto Source: Book* examines America's turn from science, warns of danger for democracy,” McLatchy Newspapers, Dec 27, 2011 * "Fool me twice: Fighting the assault on science in America" by Shawn Lawrence Otto. -
Brian Purdue at 08:36 AM on 1 January 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
This short but compelling video is an excellent retrospective of how a great and passionate climate science communicator lived his live – not afraid to take the hard issues head on. I remember well his close encounter with a TV studio full of climate “skeptics”, and their myths. The video also shows the comparatively level-headed approach Stephen Schneider took to the issue of greenhouse gas forced climate change. This is encapsulated in his own words: “The end of the world and what’s good for you are the two lowest probability outcomes”. But he had no doubts about the urgency and depth of response required because things are only relative; the end of our world would be having our day-to-day support systems severely disrupted, and that’s what a few degrees increase in global temperatures would do. You can be absolutely certain a rapidly warming world will not be good for us, or the earth’s relatively stable ecosystems. Thanks Stephen, and may your life’s work progress apace. -
michael sweet at 08:32 AM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Dawsonjg, You are incorrect when you claim "McIntyre's work that discredited the hockey stick". Mann's work has been reproduced and validated by numerous independent groups. Mann himself has updated the original graph several times. McIntyre's work is the material that has not stood the test of time (see 27 in this thread). -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:09 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
The first few paragraphs were plainly written to garner an emotional response. While there is a possibility that one day these weather events in 2011 and other years may be conclusively linked to climate change (whether anthropogenic or not), articles like this reek of alarmism. Sure, the tornado season was extremely active and "tore apart towns", but that is what tornados do. I live in the South and personally have seen the devastation that these forces of natures create. Certainly, 2011 was a record year, but that record year will not alter the slight downward trend of "Strong to Violent" tornados since 1950 as shown in this graph from NOAA.
Also, as human populations grow, and towns therefor grow, it becomes more probable that tornados are going to hit "something that matters". But, thanks to the advancement of technology, increased knowledge and improved construction, humans have adapted to better survive these extreme weather events as shown in the graph below.
An active extreme event year in weather related disaster no more indicates AGW than a year with few weather related disasters indicates the opposite.
-
tonydunc at 07:42 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
ydijkstra, Are you saying that warming temps don't cause thermal expansion and melting Greenland and Glacier ice do not add to sea level? Or are you suggesting that these things are not happening? I do not know the relative volumes for all that flooding compared to how it should effect sea level, but it seems at least plausible to me that it could cause a short term decrease in global sea level. I assume that it would impact the areas around the flooding the most but I wonder if anyone here has more info.Moderator Response: [JH] Contrary to popular opnion, sea level rise is not spread uniformly throughout the world's ocean system. See SkS post, “Thinning on top and bulging at the waist: symptoms of an ailing planet.” -
shoyemore at 07:36 AM on 1 January 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
The Wikipedia entry on the Hockey Stick controversy is worth reading. Hockey Stick There were TWO congressional investigations, one at the request of Congressman Sherwood Boehlert(R) of the Science Committee. It was chaired by Professor Gerald North of Texas A&M. The report was critical of some of the methods used by Mann and his colleagues, but in the main supported the conclusions. However, this report seems to have been deemed insufficiently critical in some quarters. A second Congressman, Joe Barton (R) of the Energy Committee requested another report, chaired by a group under Professor Edwward Wegman of George Mason University. The subsequent history of the Wegman Report is well known - the part of it published in Computational Statistics was subsequently withdrawn for plagiarism. Opinion is that it is a thinly-disguised rehash of McIntyre and McKittrick's earlier papers, leavened with material taken from Wikipedia (among other sources). The Wegman Report went ahead over the objections of Congressman Boehlert who wrote to Barton that the second investigation was "misguided and illegitimate". Subsequently, Boehlert retired - after the Republican victory in 2010, the Science Committee of Congress was amalmagated with the Energy Committee under Congressman Barton. Joe Barton is notorious for apologising to BP for the obloquy the company received over the Gulf Oil spill. How Congressional staffers, the Wall Street Journal, and Wegman collaborated to disseminate MacIntyre's ideas and morph him into a "science superstar" (to whom?) can be found on several blogs. Here is a good start: Climate Science Watch -
John Hartz at 07:30 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
@ fydijkstra #13: Context is everything. Here's the entire paragraph about sea level rise. "Satellite measurements of sea level show a rise of +3.2 mm/year, an acceleration of about 90% from last century's average (Church & White, 2006). Last year NASA reported a 'pothole on the road to higher seas', where it rained so hard that the seas fell. This couldn't continue forever (Australia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Colombia surely didn't want it to last any longer), and as the oceans have warmed, floodwater has filtered back to the oceans and ice has continued to melt in 2011, sea levels rose once again." Nice try, but no cigar! -
noelfuller at 07:11 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Your link "suggest moving the capital" second paragraph repeats the link"record-breaking snowmelt" in the 1st paragraph. You may have wanted this one: suggest moving the capital" Noel -
fydijkstra at 06:58 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Church and White ar very outdated as far as the supposed acceleration of the sea level rise is considered. Unbiased examination of the Colorado data shows, that - contrary to popular belief - the rate of rise of the sea level has decreased. Of course it is possible to draw a straight line with a positive slope for the period 1992-2011. But with a more sophisticated analysis it can be shown, that - despite the high noise in the data - there has been a significant decrease in the rate of rise: 2001-2005: average rise 4.22 mm/year, standard deviation 4.87, 179 data points, 2006-2010: average rise 1.84 mm/year, standard deviation 5.522, 179 data points. A simple statistic test shows that this difference is significant. This is still a very elementary approach. Non-linear trend analysis (for instance with help of the LOESS-function) confirms this conclusion, and shows that there is a continuous decrease of the rate of sea level rise, having reached a complete standstill in the last 2 years. There is no accelaration of the sea level rise at all. Denying this fact is the real climate change denial!Moderator Response: [Rob P] Check out:Sea level fell in 2010. This is your problem:
Given that 2011 was still in the grip of La Nina, and therefore a lot more rainfall occurring over the major land basins, the "pothole"is hardly surprising.
And note the latest from AVISO:
Since the huge El Nino of 1997-98 saw a massive surge in sea level rise of 20mm, it's not unreasonable to expect things will be back on track with the next El Nino. So please no more ironic comments about denial. -
Chris G at 06:55 AM on 1 January 20122011 Year in Review (part 1)
Rob, (#4) Glad to hear that. I've seen some critiques of that communication that struck me as an abuse of statistics. Yeah, there was the dust bowl in the US in the time period prior to the baseline chosen by Hansen, but I don't know how extreme the actual heat wave was or how many other events around the world happened in close proximity chronologically. I'm guessing some of these are being addressed already, but just in case, and if there is time for it, I'd be eager to see something succinct on them. A bit of laziness or my part perhaps, but I don't see any need to reinvent the wheel, and as I've gotten older, I've learned that carpenters are generally better at carpentry than I am. -
Zen69 at 06:47 AM on 1 January 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
If the MWP is thought to be regional then I assume the data must just be specific to certain regions and therefore not truly representative of global temperature. Is this the case only with The MWP or does this apply throughout the temperature record as regards the proxy data? Just wondering.
Prev 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 Next
