Recent Comments

Prev  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  Next

Comments 69351 to 69400:

69351. Tom Curtis at 01:56 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       perseus @27, we can agree that GDP is a poor measure of economic activity, and that consumerism is a bad thing. However, IMO bringing those issues into this discussion merely complicates the issue without shedding light. Might I suggest the the discussion should turn on whether growth in productive capacity is a good or bad thing of itself, and if it is good in itself, is the crisis of global warming sufficiently great a threat, and sufficiently unavoidable otherwise that we must resort to zero or negative growth to combat it. And for those who think it is, read up carefully on the Great Depression, for that is what you are wishing on the world for the next fifty years.
69352. KR at 01:51 AM on 30 November 2011
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak - My apologies, an error in my previous post. You did present some references regarding amounts of permafrost. I will, however, point out that permafrost doesn't melt without cause - it instead responds to temperature changes, as a feedback. From Zimov 2006, one of your references: "Factors inducing high-latitude climate warming should be mitigated to minimize the risk of a potentially large carbon release that would further increase climate warming." Not a forcing, but a feedback; you seem to be claiming otherwise. And, I'll note again, current rates of change in CO2 (and temperature) are not found in the paleo record - indicating that natural causes are insufficient to drive the current changes.
69353. Tom Curtis at 01:48 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       perseus @19, despite the many flaws with GDP as a measure of economic activity, it is the most commonly agreed measure, and the measure you used in your article. Using that measure, Nicholas Stern has estimated a cost of 1% GDP per annum to tackle climate change. That is a cost, and ergo a reduction of GDP available for other purposes. If GDP remains constant, but 1% per annum of that constant amount is allocated to other purposes, that is 1% less for things like food, education, police, roads, etc, ie, a 1% drop in national income. If the cost is greater than 1% per annum, then the reduction in income is greater. However, I am not an economist and have not and do not have the capability of making the estimate myself. Therefore I propose to accept what appears to be close to the consensus figure from a number of estimates.
69354. KR at 01:42 AM on 30 November 2011
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak - Your previous two posts amount to a claim that "It's not anthropogenic emissions, it's melting permafrost - without which our emissions would have no consequences." This is a curious assertion, as we know what our emission levels are, and we know what the rate of rise in CO2 is. Given that the increase in atmospheric levels is less than our emissions, a simple mass balance analysis shows that we are indeed responsible for the rise in atmospheric concentrations. And your hypothesis is a fascinating call to abdicate responsibility for our actions. I'll also note that you have not provided any references supporting your theory, nor have you shown any estimates for CO2 contributions from melting permafrost. Even more importantly, I cannot think of a historic record indicating anything natural close to the rate of CO2 increase occurring now, including the PETM, which was at least an order of magnitude slower in onset. I strongly suggest that you read (and comment upon) either the How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions, or the Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural threads. I don't think there's a thread specific to your permafrost claims - perhaps because I don't recall anyone ever proposing it before... which should tell you something.
69355. Tom Curtis at 01:38 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       WyrdWays @18, frankly you can take your comments about "techno-evangelist bug" and shove it where the sun don't shine. If it has any relevance, I have spent my entire adult life at an income well below western (or Australian average). I am a medievalist (an amateur scholar of medieval history), and I grew up (partly) in Africa where my friends included many people from townships (where whole families slept in a single room) and holidays in remote villages with no electric power. I know from poverty, and I know the difference between necessary and merely beneficial technologies. Further, I have no personal desire for affluence except in the terms that the lowest incomes in the West are affluent compared to the rest of the world. In short, I am not disagreeing with you because I am a starry eyed idealist. Were I to follow my prejudices I would be entirely on your side, but I refuse to check my brains and accept comforting dogma's, no matter who propagates them. To your "substantive" points: 1) Medical research is a cost because it takes resources to conduct it. At a minimum it takes the food resources which the scientists and staff do not grow for themselves. Ergo medical research is a cost to farmers, and can only be conducted where farmers are very productive. It is also a cost to glass blowers, labourers and builders, administrators etc who must all contribute their labour to make the research possible, and who in turn must have their food grown for them. All of this cost in resources means you need substantive investments in transport and logistics and financing, which in turn places more of a load on farmers, and so you go. That leaves aside the greater costs in research in chemistry, biology and physics which make fundamental breakthroughs in research possible. 2) Like them or loathe them, merchant bankers and brokers and all the rest contribute to the growth of the economy, which makes possible the allocation of resources to such expensive things as research. Had the people 100 years ago looked around and said, "We have never had it so good,and all our basic needs are met. Therefore we will have no more economic growth", the result would be that research in the 20th century would have proceeded at about a tenth of its actual rate (at most) because of the very limited number scientists that could be employed at the then rate of economic activity. Look back a hundred years from now and the same will be said of us, if we manage to negotiate a few crisis on the way.
69356. perseus at 01:03 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       @22 skept.fr I'm not convinced of that because green products might have a higher marketable value, also that assumes Developing economies don't invest in renewable technology as well, China is for example. I suspect that is why many economies are relatively enthusiastic about producing more green energy rather than other means of reducing carbon since it doesn't reduce GDP. In itself, converting to (even expensive) low emissions technology doesn't involve a reduction in GDP. In fact worldwide GDP might surely increase if low emissions technology was more expensive and enforced. We might choose to work more to pay for the more expensive energy, and GDP is simply a measure of the monetary value not usefulness. Even a war might increase GDP despite the fact that you are trying to destroy one another with disposable items! Perhaps that disposablility provides a clue to the reason it did increase so much,and why GDP shouldt be taken too seriously! The US emerged from WW2 far better off in terms of GDP see here: Military production during World War II Of course the idea is that we transfer GDP from unnecessary GDP such as military products, fashion or waste to renewable energy. GDP is not necessarily good. For example, if we can reduce food intake by growing less, buying less, wasting less and working less, GDP goes down but there is no hit on real living standards, yet we have the free bonus of less toil! The same argument could be made for many things, we often needlessly waste or replace things and work needlessly to do so. It is crazy!
69357. MA Rodger at 00:59 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       My views on the de-carbonising of our economy are usually more optimistic that others. Saying that, I note the projected 'business as usual' growth of CO2 emissions given above is some 1.2% pa. That's real optimism. Of the 4 approaches towards de-carbonising suggested above, I don't think we have yet seen real results from 3 yet. I reckon that when we do, we will be pleasantly surprised how much progress is possible with energy intensity which, if sufficient, will also impact carbon intensity. One example of silliness I often mention is the amazing eco-green achievement of the first sub-200g whisky bottle. Now that's sure gonna save the planet, especially if it is recycled, don't you think? I don't believe industry has yet asked itself the question "How do we use 60% less energy? 80% less energy?" And in the case of the glass bottle industry the answer is "By making bottles out of something else." I see few signs yet of industry reacting to the challenge of AGW. They may have it in hand, but the deliverables have yet to show themselves. Nor has society got on board with reducing energy use. You can discuss 'why not?' Or 'when will they get on board?' But at the moment they are not. There are, for instance, still factories churning out cars with a gargantuan thirst for fuel which some folk will buy and then get all indignant when the price of fuel goes up again. A car that runs on one third, one quarter the fuel of a 'normal' car is not infeasible today but there is not the consumer demand for it. One day there will be. And when folk do start taking AGW seriously I wouldn't recommend driving around in the likes of a Range Rover, unless you have an armed escort. Supplies of clean energy are going to be scarce for some decades to come. I see energy intensity as the key 'solution' to de-carbonising. Once developed societies become de-carbonised, developing societies can then develop towards the same standard.
69358. Alexandre at 00:52 AM on 30 November 2011
       Klimafakten.de - Leveraging Skeptical Science content
       This website started as a one-man effort, that evolved to a team-effort, and now is further taking advantage of the internet interactivity. It's great to see it growing like this. Cangratulations to you all.
69359. victull at 00:40 AM on 30 November 2011
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       "That you care little for the suffering of others is simply an indictment of skewed moral values" Rob, that is a pretty big leap up to the moral high ground which can be dangerously exposed. I have worked in the Pacific as well - Fiji, Tonga and Samoa so I have some familiarity with their culture and history. History might speak to you of many fairly recent migrations in the Pacific - one of the most significant being the Maori to your island home - New Zealand less than 1000 years ago. Why the Maori left their island homes to make the huge journey to New Zealand I could research for you - but I recall that overpopulation and depletion of resources (and perhaps even a bit of sea level rise in the medieval period) were likely drivers. Whatever - the Maori invasion of New Zealand was not good for the slow moving fauna, some of which rapidly became extinct. "Many of my friends and former work colleagues are Pacific Islanders. They are important, and what happens to them matters." And to me too. I am sure Australia and New Zealand will contribute mightily to resettling the Tuvuluans should they have to abandon their Islands. Perhaps Northern Territory & western coast of far north Queensland where sea level is dropping would be good places to recreate their tropical paradise. And by the way I have been paying attention: "That could be said of any ""averaged"" point on planet Earth's oceans, and is an essential piece of evidence for global warming." ""Averaged"" means that some points are up and some are down but on average the trend is up.
69360. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:37 AM on 30 November 2011
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
       What quantities of carbon were - and are currently - in the soil especially permafrost? Zimov (2006): “... a total carbon content of ~720 Gt.” Schuur (2008): “We show that accounting for C stored deep in the permafrost more than doubles previous high-latitude inventory estimates, with this new estimate equivalent to twice the atmospheric C pool.” The 1000 PgC estimate for the permafrost storage change of Zimov (2009), Tarnocai (2009): ”Our estimate for the first meter [32.2–69.6 kg m −2] of soil alone is about double that reported for this region [northern circumpolar permafrost] in previous analyses.” Kuhry (2010): “ A new estimate of 1672 Pg C of belowground organic carbon in the northern circumpolar permafrost region more than doubles the previous value and highlights the potential role of permafrost carbon in the Earth System.” Zech (2011) : “Recent findings show that the amount of organic carbon stored in high-latitude permafrost regions has been greatly underestimated.” - comment on the paper Koven (2011) : “At stake is an estimated 2,167 petagrams of carbon in all layers of high-latitude soil.” There is thus a possibility that this natural source of increase throughout the twentieth century (and today) is much larger than the simple use (by me) estimates Zimov team in 2006. It is possible that the increase was not similar to the volume of the source of our emissions (at the same time) but probably (several times?) larger.
69361. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:35 AM on 30 November 2011
       Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Continue Climbing
       Continue Climbing It is worth set a background for discussion - change the size of natural sources of C in the period when it was being precise measurements of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere - run without interruption in time - since 1958. In the figure above we can see significant fluctuations in the amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere - from circa 0.5 ppmv CO2 - to 3 ppmv of CO2 - for a year. Erbrecht & Lucht (2006): “The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere steadily increases as a consequence of anthropogenic emissions but with large interannual variability caused by the terrestrial biosphere.” “The response of soil respiration to changes in temperature and precipitation explains most of the modelled anomalous CO 2 flux.” “We therefore conclude that during the last 25 years the two largest disturbances of the global carbon cycle were strongly controlled by soil processes rather then the response of vegetation to these large-scale climatic events.” Of course there are other natural sources "quick response" - the ocean: degassing of C - mainly CO2 (ENSO) in the equatorial zone, upwelling, and Coastal Ocean. However: “... were strongly controlled by soil processes.” Soil organic matter - humus and the "remainder" of NH „... and increased emissions from tropical wetlands.”. Where to follow the fastest and largest changes in this source? “... potential role of the thawing of the methane-rich Northern permafrost.” Zimov (2006): “Frozen yedoma deposits across Siberia and Alaska typically have average carbon contents from 2% to 5%—roughly 10 to 30 times the amount of carbon generally found in deep, nonpermafrost mineral soils.” “The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C).” In terms of of isotopes - so it is the same as the source of "our" - fossil fuels. “Permafrost is a globally significant carbon reservoir that responds to climate change in a unique and very simple way: With warming, its spatial extent declines, causing rapid carbon loss; with cooling, the permafrost reservoir refills slowly ...” - frozen "remainder "(without the humification process) after the thawing, shall be rapid mineralization. “About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed ...” “... it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon at the beginning of the Holocene. “ Of course at that time also we had strong degassing of CO2 from the deep ocean area polar. Up to now “... the total terrestrial carbon reservoir did not decrease in glacial times but instead may have even absorbed several hundred gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and ocean.” - We have now, and mostly we had - during the Holocene - the excess of net terrestrial carbon sinks over sources. Therefore, terrestrial - as a whole - having advantage of carbon sinks to sources - are currently participating in the removal of part of our GHGs emissions. It is worth noting how much permafrost has thawing in the twentieth century before the year 1958 and beyond. Between c. 1910 and 195? - circa "3 million km2", between c. 1960 and 200? - about the 2 million km2. Total c. 4.5 million km2. (in the 50s we had growth area of Permafrost). At the beginning of the Holocene the source (identical - C isotopes - of ours) has grown by melting the "3 million km2" about 500 Gt C (Pg C) ... Our CO2 added is the atmosphere during the 150 years from the combustion of fossil fuel + cement - is circa 350 Pg C. With the change in land use 500 Pg C. In the 50s we had in many regions - high latitudes of NH - rapid cooling, then-Keeling began his precise study of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and ... a constant trend increase temperature. Similarly, in areas of permafrost. From 195? years we note the much larger increase in temperature on the permafrost (4-4.5 degree C) than the global average. High Latitudes NH - generally: I propose this paper: Esper (2010) ... and for zone 64N-90N: “... the recent warming in this zone is over 5 °C per century!” Rising temperatures in the period: between c. the 1910 and 195? probably influenced the fact that: Khatiwala (2009): “... terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s, subsequently turning into a sink.” As we can see two important (the largest source of natural and anthropogenic) analyzed - identical in isotopic composition - the source of Carbon increased. Without a natural source increase biosphere would certainly has removed the more (all?) of our C.
69362. DrTsk at 00:32 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       No doubt. Then US for example, if gas finds do not increase will go all out towards shale oil&gas and coal
69363. skept.fr at 00:19 AM on 30 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       #23 DrTsk : well, the problem is of course economic, and not just geologic. The true cost of carbon increases if you include health, climatic and environmental externalities (and even military ones in the case of oil). But it also increases as the EROEI diminishes over time, and that is determined by geological constraints : crude light oil from Arabian deserts is not presalt oil from Brazilian deep off-shore — unconventional resources are more expensive than conventional ones, which sustained the hight rate of growth of XXth century. Anyway, from an economic point of view, market price is the correct reference rather than extraction cost. We currently produce 87 Mbpd of oil, with a peak in conventional oil since 2005-2006; if in the near future supply cannot increase as fast as the demand (notably from emerging countries), price will reach higher and higher levels, putting a strong pressure on oil-importer countries.
69364. DrTsk at 23:33 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       Skept.fr . There is enough oil and gas...just too expensive to get out and too damaging to the environment.
69365. skept.fr at 23:21 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       perseus : "Why does maintaining zero growth for OECD nations while spending 1% of GDP per annum on conversion to low emissions technology represent a declining income over time?" If the production of goods and services is stable (no growth of GDP), but the cost for producing them increases (1% a year for public or private investment), it means your purchasing power declines (goods and services are relatively more costly over time). An artificial increase of income (monetary expansion) would just produce inflation. You can avoid this outcome only if the energy intensity effect of your investment on cost is higher that the cost of investment itself. If wind power permits to produce the same good with 2% less cost than coal or nuclear, your 1% investment translate in a 1% gain in purchasing power (goods are just cheaper with the new energy). But then, you must still avoid the Jevons effect (people tend to consume more as energy intensity lessen).
69366. Daniel Bailey at 22:47 PM on 29 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       @ Brigitte

       "What to do if someone gives you several myths in one go ?"

       This is actually a pretty common defense people put up to protect their inner worldview. What I find most effective is something along the lines of:

       "That's very interesting. You raise a number of interesting points and I would be interested in discussing them all. Of those points you raise, which one do you feel most strongly about?"

       And then go from there. Never let them reframe the discussion back to their initial Gish Gallop, a-mass-of-spaghetti-thrown-against-the-wall-in-the-hopes-that-some-of-it-may-stick defense. (Your results may vary)
69367. skept.fr at 22:13 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       I agree with Tom concerning economic growth as a good thing. Western countries have globally the better HDI of the planet because they sustained a century long economic growth, and developed state-redistribution of wealth toward collective goods. Conversely, the poorest countries have low level of education, health, nutrition, etc. Economic growth is not the sole factor of welfare, of course, democracy and human rights matter for the Human Development Index. We must not have a western-centric vision of the present situation : OECD is no more the locomotive for world growth (nor carbon emissions for climate debate). Even if you convince your fellow citizens that lifetime growth of their personal incomes and assets is a bad thing (good luck for that), you’ve not adressed the main concern : 5 billion humans live in much more poor conditions than Western countries and want to escape their poverty. Globalization is not just a creation of voracious traders, it is the basic reality of a world whose representations have been brought closer by information and communication technologies. No country at Durban negociations meeting defends a policy agenda founded on ‘negative growth’ for itself or for others. Nobody consider the life conditions of 2 billion very poor rural people as sustainable nor desirable. The basic consensus is that we need to increase wealth of the world, not wealth per se, but wealth as condition of human welfare. But I’m more pessimistic than Tom concerning the possibility to achieve such an economic growth without a large part of fossil fuels in the energy mix, at least in curent technologies conditions. We can certainly slow carbon emissions by energy efficiency and non-fossil substitution, but a large amount of energy is still a basic need for achieving human welfare. As I quoted it in another discussion (from Vaclac Smill’s works), in global mean from empirical observations, HDI is lowest under 40 GJ (per capita per year), increase from 40 GJ to 110 GJ, stabilize beyond 110 GJ (with still marginal gains, very low). So even if you take HDI (which is not the sole driver of human behavior, we also valorize other pleasures in life) and even if you imagine a perfectly egalitarian redistribution, we should produce now 770 EJ per year (rather than current 500 EJ) for an optimal and global HDI. And more in the future. PS : as a regular reader of The Oil Drum, I'm not sure there is enough oil, gas and coal to sustain such an economy and energy growth beyond 2030 or 2050. This geologic uncertainty add to climatic uncertainty as an argument for an accelerated energy transition toward a non-fossil future, if we want to avoid major risks.
69368. perseus at 21:32 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       @3 Tom Tim Jackson suggests that the 1% figure which Stern quotes is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain 2 deg C increase, since 550 ppm is too high, we need 450ppm or even lower. In fact the cost would be more likely to be equivalent to growth itself.
69369. perseus at 20:44 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       @3 Tom Why does maintaining zero growth for OECD nations while spending 1% of GDP per annum on conversion to low emissions technology represent a declining income over time? Doesn't the emissions technology contribute to and replace lost GDP? Is this not better than the type of GDP generated through excessive and unnecessary use of carbon intensive products? It seems to me that if we reduce the useful lifetime of a product, or make the old version appear unfashionable we increase GDP but achieve nothing but pointless toil. Surely we have a vast potential to reallocate skills and labour away from this pointless consumerism and towards research and development without increasing growth? The UK government recently announced plans to increase the speed limit which would produce 'economic benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds through shorter journey times'. However, would this not have been better achieved through teleconferencing? Perhaps teleconferencing reduces the need for cars, road-space and fuel, thereby reducing GDP. Not quite what is on the agenda at the moment?
69370. Brigitte at 20:22 PM on 29 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       Hi, Thanks for the excellent and informative paper. I will certainly take the recommendations into account from now on. If I may add one thought: I think it is very important to realize that things that are obvious to yourself are not necessarily obvious to others. Assessing the amount of knowledge your discussion partner possesses is very important. I can remember only a couple of years ago, when I didn’t know much about climate change, I had the vague notion: “Yes the earth is probably warming, but it’s not absolutely sure yet and it may not be all bad”. If at that time some maniac foaming at the mouth had shouted at me: “Beware! The end of the world is near!” I would not be inclined to believe him either. I am absolutely convinced that professional climate deniers – people who deliberately defend a viewpoint they don’t believe themselves - are the biggest criminals on the planet, even worse than terrorists since they do more damage than any terrorist could ever achieve. Their lies will cost millions of lives. They are deliberately squandering the future of our planet in exchange for some money. But when dealing with normal people who don’t believe in climate change, you are just talking to people who have formed a judgement based on what they know/what they read. It is not useful to insult people – I just think back of how I thought just a couple of years ago (although I never was a climate skeptic). Some questions that weren’t answered by the paper, that I am sometimes struggling with: - What to do if someone gives you several myths in one go ? An example: -START OF MYTH-"The IPCC is untrustworthy since they have falsified studies. Yes, the climate changes but it has always changed. The influence of mankind on the amount of CO2 is really minimal. Besides, CO2 is not even the strongest greenhouse gas. If humans are responsible for the earth’s warming, are they also responsible for the warming of the other planets in the solar system ? The sun has a much larger influence on the climate than we thought.”-END OF MYTH- If I try to answer these myths separately, people lose patience. If I don’t answer certain myths people continue believing that some of it is true. - How strong should my message be ? The paper recommends not to use dramatic language, otherwise people will feel offended and will reject the statement right away. If however I try to convey the message in a nuanced and non-frightening way, I am also giving the wrong impression, since people might get the impression that the problem is not that urgent or the consequences are not going to be that bad. - The paper also mentions that people who are less fixed in their minds can be convinced more easily using information. If you argue with someone on a public forum, is it your first aim to convince your discussion partner, or do you have a better chance trying to convince the people who are reading along ? Your discussion partner may be stuck so much in his convictions that he will never change his mind.
69371. Philippe Chantreau at 19:57 PM on 29 November 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       In addition to the pointers given in moderation on the previous page, the question of OLR has been examined in the SkS post treating of empirical evidence for AGW. On this particular point, it referred Harries (2001), wich has seen a published update since, but also Philipona et al (2004), Evans et al (2006), Griggs (2004) and Chen (2007). I'd embed the links but I'm pressed for time. All the links are in the post by Dana from Sep 2010 "Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming." This took me only a fwe minutes to find, it may have taken slightly longer on Google but still would have been very easy. Why can't Gary Thomson find this on his own?
69372. neil at 19:33 PM on 29 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       dana1981 As noted by JFyre11 above, I suggest you remove "which is closely related to the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCMA)", because this is in fact not true at all. The CCCMA models (e.g. CanESM2, the CMIP5 contribution) are very different from the UVic model: 1) The CCCMA model has a full 3-d atmosphere, and uses a totally different ocean model code, amongst other differences. The models do not behave similarly in their carbon dynamics, and they have different climate sensitivities.
69373. WyrdWays at 19:15 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       @Tom C : Ok, I can see you've been bitten quite hard by the techno-evangelist bug. Endless optimism can be a great quality. But not when it veers into blind faith. It was faith in the unlimited good of technical progress that bought to global warming in the first place. On the points raised in @8: I see absolutely no connection between the medical cases you mention and need for a relentless pursuit of 'economic growth'. If the fabulous intellectual capital of man wasn't being hived off into the various useless parasites of the modern economy (eg investment bankers, marketing gurus, pepper-spray manufacturers..) and was instead thrown into medical science.. perhaps we would have already crossed Malaria, Cholera, Aids and Typhus off that list. Medical research and health care only count as 'costs' because our system frames it that way. Surely these are good ends in themselves that could be pursued more vigorously if we stopped pandering to smalltime iPhone envy. PS this was typed out on a C64... ;-)
69374. Steve L at 19:06 PM on 29 November 2011
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Not too many countries have been wiped off the map before. I mean, there are a bunch that have been absorbed into others, but the land still exists and in many cases descendants of the original inhabitants are still there. Tuvalu will not persist, and the people/culture of Tuvalu will be extirpated. Countries that disrupt progress on treaties to limit carbon emissions are, in my naive opinion, waging undeclared war on Tuvalu and other low lying countries. Not only is it alarming -- it's disgusting.
69375. WyrdWays at 18:55 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       @5 Dr TSk: "What is wrong with sustainable living without growth once a certain standard of living has been achieved?" Absolutely nothing. I just think that the West's current consumption of Earth's resources (material and ecological) is already way above that sustainable level of living. We need to descend to that level, and ditch the idea of infinite growth. Some may see that as a lowering of the standard of living. I see it as stepping off the treadmill consumptive capitalism has coralled us onto to. Time to stretch our legs, enjoy the view and think about how to be happy human beings again. A higher standard of living, surely?
69376. skywatcher at 18:21 PM on 29 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       Hi Dr Schmittner, many thanks for your response. I'd be very happy if we can exclude high sensitivity values, but I'd still be very unhappy if it takes us a matter of decades to effect a change as large as LGM-Holocene. That, to me, is much more serious whatever the climate sensitivity. I think Dana's graph you disagree with illuminates the same point.
69377. Mark Harrigan at 18:07 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       @bit_pattern I'm not sure if this will satisfy you, and I too encounter the same concerns. I have found a few of ways at looking at this. 1) If you consider historical emissions rather than future emissions then we in the West (including Australia) are responsible for a whole lot more than just the 1.3-1.5% that is frequently quoted - so where does the burden for action lie? 2) Per capita emissions are a pretty good proxy for "CO2 profligacy" - Australia fares pretty poorly on that front - indeed despite China now being the number one absolute emitter their emissions per person are still way under ours or America - so where does the burden for action lie? 3) Imagine you are in a room with 350 people. These people are divided into groups - the biggest of which is about 50 people - let's call them the "China" group and the smallest is 1 person (you) - we'll call you "Oz" for short. The room is filling with water and, if left unchecked, everyone in the room will drown. Alas there is no way out of the room and also no way for the water to run out except through a very small plug hole that simply cannot cope. The only way to save everyone in the room is to reduce the amount of water entering so that the plug hole can cope (alas enlarging it is not an option without putting at risk the structure of the room). The group has learned that the amount of water entering into the room is a function of each person's individual activity and that at least some of this activity is regarded by each individual as necessary to maintain their way of life and enjoy the comforts of the room. You happen to be one of those people whose activity contributes the most per individual (and also happen to be in a very comfortable part of the room) although your overall contribution is dwarfed by the large group of 50 who are in a far less comfortable part of the room and who are increasing their individual activity to try and get more comfortable. Is it fair or ethical for you do nothing but demand that the group of 50 act first to reduce their activity (thus reducing the water flow far more than your individual efforts ever could) but also see that this would mean they remain far less comfortable than you while you sit there and do nothing but remain in comfort? Or do you take action and communicate with everyone you can that if we don't act in unison we may all be dead? (By the way there is another group of 15 or so who seem to be both one of the largest producers of water, the most comfortable and with one of the highest individual outputs of water anywhere - but they are apparently deaf blind and stupid and at least half of them deny the water is even there). Perhaps you might also accept that in this life or death situation you would be unwise to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and that even if not everyone takes action your chances of survival (and everyone else's) are improved if you DO take action.
69378. scaddenp at 18:00 PM on 29 November 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Gary, I would reinforce what KR said - and also I notice that you do not appear to have responded to the extended answer to you at Science of Doom. As to answering the challenge here - well the point really is that if you cant respond to the hypothetical question, then it would appear that your lack of acceptance of climate theory is bound so deeply into your politics, that you would deny explanation even from Ramanathan. If are really open to scientific truth, then should be able to comtemplate what your choice of action should be.
69379. Tom Curtis at 17:51 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       Addendum, I do agree that the human population does need to stabilize, and the sooner the better. But that is best achieved by economic growth and education in poor nations. It will certainly not be turned around in time to be as significant factor in the battle against global warming.
69380. Tom Curtis at 17:49 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       DrTsk @13, mineral resources are almost endlessly reusable through recycling. If that were not enough, almost half of the non-gaseous matter in the solar system is iron. So even leaving aside the potential substitution of advanced ceramics and glasses for many structural uses, mineral resources are not a limiting factor on economic growth per se. At most there is a risk that the energy intensity of metal production will increase as the more accessible ore bodies are mined out.
69381. DrTsk at 17:34 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       The only problem with China is the attribution of the emissions. Especially since they have become the manufacturing proxy of the world. Most of their emissions should be attributed to western nations. @Tom Limit pollution, and recycle to avoid materials bottlenecks. With infinite energy still we cannot break through the finality of mineral resources, unless the human population stabilizes.
69382. AndreasSchmittner at 17:05 PM on 29 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       dana: seems like a detail, but these distinctions are important. Shakun & Carlson (2011) report a "temperature" change of -4.9 K, which, I think, is a mix of sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures, depending on if their data is from the ocean or from land. (most are from the ocean) Hansen and Sato don't pay much attention to this subtlety and simply use -5 K as the surface air temperature difference dSAT from which they calculate climate sensitivity, back on the envelop style. Note also that they don't bother to justify their error estimates of plus minus 1 K. I don't know what model you were using to calculated your Fig. 4, but right now I don't believe it. (Although the idea is interesting and could perhaps illuminate the dichotomy between a low climate sensitivity and a large spatial variability.) skywatcher: Imagine the climate sensitivity of the real Earth was 10 K. This would mean that, no matter what we do, we'd already be locked in for drastic climate changes in the coming decades. The fact that we show that we can exclude these high values is good news, I think, and the sentence you quote relates to that. On the other hand the paleoclimate data tell us how unequal temperature changes on Earth are and this is indeed a reason for concern. (Again the dichotomy between low climate sensitivity and large spatial variability, i.e. large impacts in certain regions) Tom Curtis: In equilibrium the ocean surface warms (or cools) less because any energy input will lead to higher evaporation, which leads to cooling. On land this effect is limited by the availability of water. This is the reason land temperatures change more than ocean temperatures.
69383. KR at 16:49 PM on 29 November 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       DB - I had not been aware of that exchange, thank you. It appears that was an active discussion, with many valid points raised, and a number of which that garythompson had not answered. garythompson - I strongly suggest you post on the relevant thread discussing your position: most readers on this site check the "Comments" link for recent posts, meaning many threads become active (again) when someone has an item to discuss.
69384. bit_pattern at 16:48 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       This is an interesting and informative piece but do you think you guys could put together a concise, beginners guide to why per capita is used when comparing economies emissions output? It's a point I often come up against, that per capita comparisons are meaningless because the only thing that matters to AGW is the overall output, ergo we shouldn't do anything until China does. I always try to counter it by pointing out the emissions scenarios allow for continued emissions growth by China etc. for the next decade or two and that but that to remain within the 500 GT cap that will keep us under 450 ppm then the developed world needs to be bringing down their emissions now because it is impossible for China to act now and if we wait until they do then it will be far too late. But the actual economic argument for why per capita is so important is sometimes a bit beyond me so if you were able to do something along those lines it would be helpful I think.
69385. Tom Curtis at 16:47 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       DrTsk @10, no! That is why I qualified my comments @9 by saying "even assuming no gain in energy efficiency". However, given sufficient energy, electrolysis can provide all the water we could possible need from the ocean. Given energy plus water, we can gain all the food we could possibly need via hydroponics. It follows that, provided we limit pollution, energy consumption and efficiency are the fundamental limits on economic growth.
69386. Daniel Bailey at 15:59 PM on 29 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       @ skywatcher

       "the paper seems to support a climate in which you get more bang for your buck, or more "change" (however you quantify it) for every degree Celsius warming"

       Aye, there's the rub, isn't it? The world of the LGM is as starkly different from our world today as our world is from that of a world with no WAIS and a greatly diminished GIS. 13 meters SLR, give or take, results in the ocean doing a lot of take: Of course, more than just those Floridians will be impacted. The Big Easy? Gone. Sacramento? Swimming with the fishes (sorry, Dana). The golf mecca of Myrtle Beach is the world's biggest water hazard. Just up the East Coast a bit, Virginia won't be for water lovers. A favorite getaway, the Bahamas will form a larger iteration of the Bimini Road. Across the pond, The Low Countries get lower, Venice goes into the gondola-export business to those needing to learn to swim like the Egyptians. Crossing over a bit, OPEC reaps some of its ironic rewards while the sea does its own march to Bagdad. Being equal-opportunist, over in the Orient the world's biggest economies feel their own impacts. SE Asia will not be spared as the sea lengthens its arms. Leaving one of the poster children for SLR front and center. And below the wave. (before anyone asks/cries foul, all screenshots were made at the same scale/resolution) Me, I'm not worried. I'm a thousand miles and 800 feet (at least right now) of elevation removed from the ocean. Not my problem...
69387. DrTsk at 15:47 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       Do you think that only energy affects economical growth????
69388. Tom Curtis at 15:30 PM on 29 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       Sorry, KR. Obviously I recognize that M&M 2004 had two authors, not just one. Despite my error, I still maintain that McIntyre is guilty of the same sort of dodgy dealing with facts as McKitrick is revealed to be in the quoted section.
69389. KR at 15:25 PM on 29 November 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       garythompson - and others - "Until you can prove that over a span of say 30 years that the OLR has decreased in the wavelengths that CO2 abosorbs (15um or 700 cm-1) then the AGW theory isn't proven." This is discussed (and shown to be the case - OLR changes just where expected for greenhouse gases) on the How do we know CO2 is causing warming thread. The "Search" function is your friend. Moderators - I also (searching on "OLR") found an unfinished SkS page discussing this skeptic argument.
       Response:

       [DB] KR, much of what Gary Thompson is putting up here is rebunkable material that was debunked over a year ago.  JC made an American Thinker article that Gary had written the object of this rebuttal.

69390. KR at 15:16 PM on 29 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       Tom Curtis - Sorry, but: you quote what McKitrick said, yet attribute it to McIntyre? They are separate people, although they have coauthored a number of poorly written papers. McIntyre has spent much of the last 8-9 years submitting papers and blogging against Mann et al and similar papers (without much justification or traction, and multiple debunkings, mind you) - that should be sufficient grounds regarding McIntyre to take what he writes with a large grain of salt.
69391. Tom Curtis at 14:21 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       Wyrdways @4, the potential collectible solar energy on the Earth's surface is 11,000 times our current energy use. Clearly we cannot collect all of it without adverse repercussions, but we we were to collect a tenth of it, that 225 years economic growth at 3% per annum, even assuming no gain in energy efficiency. Beyond that we can easily garner more energy from the sun using orbital solar power. The potential energy harvest by this means is for practical purposes unlimited. It is true that we cannot sustain unlimited population growth. But economic growth? There may come a time when we have exploited most of the solar systems resources such that economic growth cannot be further sustained, but not on anytime scale at which it effects decision making now or in the next several centuries.
69392. Tom Curtis at 14:08 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       WyrdWays @4, we had certainly not reached "... the point where we have material sufficiency, securely meeting the fundamental human needs ..." 100 years ago when there was no cure for Polio and it was just seven years before the outbreak of the Spanish Flu pandemic that killed 50 to 100 million people in 2 years. We are still well short of that level world wide with Malaria, Cholera, Aids and Typhus still being major killers. That is to leave aside the host of minor ailments that still plague us and for which we have no cure, such as cancer and dementia. The ability to pay for cures for these diseases, and the research that leads to them comes of the back of economic growth. So also will the ability to improve education standards, and as I certainly agree that "man does not live by bread alone", that is a fundamental good (not need, but good) in which we are capable of much improvement, but which improvement comes at a cost, and hence must in the end be paid for by economic growth. Furthermore, however much you are inclined to dismiss material goods as the "fluffing up human 'needs' ", the simple fact remains that even small improvements in material assets will, all else being equal, lead to a more enjoyable life. This is most easily seen with computing. You may think that there has been no material gain in benefits in the progress from commodore 64 to Intel Core i3-2100, but I disagree; and so ought everybody who enjoys or finds instructive discussion on this site. And that progress is driven by a combination of economic growth and technological research. For my part I hope that that growth and research continue for some time. In the meantime, it is important to recognize that though increase in happiness due to material well being declines rapidly after a point, it still increases after that point. And an increase in human happiness is good in itself. Hence, all else being equal, economic growth is a good thing.
69393. adelady at 14:04 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       wyrdways " Rather than making ... and landfill fodder that some call economic growth. ... incremental, socially-useful and non-destructive innovation. Then you remove the ludricous -'creative-destructive' tail-swallowing of the current system. " My view on this is that we've distorted our labour and innovation processes. There seems to be a dominant notion that you're only doing something worthwhile if you're digging, cutting, killing, taking or otherwise extracting material from the natural world and processing and converting it into something "useful". Garbage, sewage systems and landfill sites are an unfortunate and ugly by-product of this attitude. We'd rather not look at them or talk about them. What we should be doing is managing the resources we have. Management means viewing every single thing as an assemblage of nutrients, minerals or just plain molecules. When it comes to nutrients, a sensible system would not allow an iota of possible fertility to be sidetracked into a landfill. What this means is that our organisation of labour and technology should be first directed to retaining and using materials that have already been extracted from natural sources. A bit like the sensible investor who only ever spends the interest and dividends earned on capital invested. Capital should not be exhausted on living expenses - extravagant or profligate living depletes financial capital in the same way as our current exploitation and destruction, rather than appropriate management, of our natural capital does. "Garbage, sewage and landfill sites" are the obvious signs that our so-called advanced societies are not much different in attitude and skill from less 'advanced' societies that use up their local water and land - and then move on. And only come back when the land has had time to recover. We don't move on. But we don't do much better with resources. It'd be very easy for labour and capital alike to move towards a more sensible organisation of economic activity centred around retaining the maximum amount of useful materials available for re-use or further use (or forestalling the need to extract more natural materials). Here I should cite the approaching shortage of phosphorus as a prime example. My own pessimistic view is that far too many people are excited by the idea of explosives and big, bigger, biggest machines. The notion that working with average sized machines to extract the same materials from something we call 'waste' is probably a bit infra dig for such people.
69394. skywatcher at 13:59 PM on 29 November 2011
       Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
       #35 DB, of course, but I suppose what I find hard to grasp is that the paper seems to support a climate in which you get more bang for your buck, or more "change" (however you quantify it) for every degree Celsius warming. We may not know exactly how many degrees Celsius we'll get for each doubling of atmospheric CO2, but we do know that the world was a helluva lot different at the LGM compared to now. Schmittner's paper hints that a comparable change will not take too many degrees Celsius, and will come about quicker than previously suggested. In that case, it's not about interpreting the nuances of 'imminent' or 'extreme', but saying that we should be more worried, not less worried based on these results.
69395. muoncounter at 13:30 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       The Oil Drum article referenced by Yvan Dutil is well worth a look, as it reveals widely divergent trends of energy intensity among large consuming nations. Why does world energy intensity remain flat, while energy intensity for many individual countries has been decreasing? We are dealing with a large number of countries with very different energy intensities. The big issue would seem to be outsourcing of heavy manufacturing. This makes the energy intensity of the country losing the manufacturing look better. As China (and presumably other developing Asian economies) take over manufacturing, their energy intensities grow in sync with their economies. Developed countries appear to have already flattened or reduced their energy intensity. The other important and sobering observation is the apparent end of a multi-year decline in the ratio of CO2 emissions to GDP: -- source [The figure] indicates what we would expect ... : A declining ratio of CO2 emissions to real GDP until about 2000, then fairly flat thereafter. In fact, there is a distinct upturn in 2010. Thus new CO2 emissions from energy sources have been rising about as fast as real GDP since about 2000, and a little faster than real GDP in 2010. This is no doubt discouraging news to those who adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, thinking it would reduce CO2 emissions. This is no doubt linked to the rapid rise in emissions of developing nations (China and Malaysia come to mind). It would suggest that the biggest impact of future CO2 emissions reduction will be in those growing economies.
69396. Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 29 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       Also relevant is this comment at Real Climate by Paul Briscoe:

       "Just to explain, I too am from the UK. I have a PhD, albeit in a very different field of science. I have a reasonable grounding in basic science, yet having followed this site and Skeptical Science for over 2 years and having read a lot of the relevant scientific literature, I am still painfully aware that I will NEVER know as much about climate science as the guys who research the field. It is extraordinarily complex science (this is not intended to be patronising, as I don’t pretend to understand it all myself!) and it is impossible to evaluate it correctly without taking into account ALL of the facts – this is the aspect that lets down most non-experts when trying to draw conclusions. Another thing I know as a scientist is that the only reliable way of evaluating science is to read the peer-reviewed literature – that is the way science works and for good reasons. Most bloggers shun the scientific literature, choosing instead to believe blogs which tell them what they want to hear. IMHO, if people are unwilling (or unable) to read what the scientific literature actually says, it is disingenuous of them to pretend that they have anything positive to contribute to the “debate”. I would imagine that this is why many of the regular posters here, who DO know their subject, show their irritation at the constant stream of myths and pseudo-science put about by fake skeptics. The bottom line for bloggers is this: if they can’t be bothered to read the scientific literature and base their arguments on that, it’s time to leave the debate to the people who do know what they’re talking about and TRUST THEIR EXPERT JUDGEMENT……… in just the same way as you would trust the surgeon who might one day save your life!"

       Indeed, I would go further than that. McIntyre and Watts also read the scientific literature, but that does not make their comments worthwhile. The simple fact is that their reading is not comprehensive and their understanding is limited for a variety of reasons. Therefore, (like me) they are not expert. An expert has been defined as a person who knows all the basic mistakes in a field, and how to avoid them. In a field as complex as climate science, that means to be an expert you require a genuine comprehensive knowledge of the whole field. A detailed and accurate knowledge of a particular area does not prevent you from making basic mistakes in others, as example after example of well educated non-climatologist deniers have demonstrated. Therefore, a blog comment is trustworthy only to the extent that: 1) The author reads the primary literature; 2) The author focuses on that area of the primary literature which intersects with their particular area of expertise (in Tamino's case statistics); 3) To the extent the author ventures outside their expertise, they primarily summarize and report on the primary literature - and are clear on the rare occasions when they venture beyond that their comments are speculative; 4) The author does not disagree with the scientific consensus in their blog posts. The last is simply a measure of appropriate humility - a recognition that they also can make mistakes, and as they are not expert, may make fundamental errors. That does not mean such people should not criticize the consensus. On the contrary, it means only that they should have the courage of their convictions and criticize the consensus in the peer reviewed literature, and only after that criticism stands the test of time should they present it in their blogs. There are a number of excellent blogs that meet all these criteria, and there is nothing wrong with drawing on the particular expertise of those authors when it exceeds that of a particular SkS author in writing an article.
69397. RW1 at 13:20 PM on 29 November 2011
       The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
       Hear anything from Hugo? The link is still dead.
       Moderator Response: [DB] I have not yet received a reply to my email. I will send another. Thanks for the reminder!
69398. DrTsk at 13:07 PM on 29 November 2011
       Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
       What is wrong with sustainable living without growth once a certain standard of living has been achieved?
69399. Tom Curtis at 13:03 PM on 29 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       skept.fr @14, the following from DeepClimate (also quoted at Real Climate) is exactly why do not consider a comparison between Tamino and McIntyre is appropriate:

       "... it is very clear that a new round of out-of-context quote mining and error-filled “analysis” is already unfolding. And the leader out of the gate, so to speak, appears to be Ross McKitrick, whose recent National Post piece on the IPCC and the latest batch of stolen emails is now being spread far and wide. In one particularly outrageous and error-filled passage, McKitrick accuses IPCC AR4 co-ordinating lead authors Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth of selecting their team of contributing authors solely on the basis of whether they agree with the pair’s scientific views. He even goes so far as to accuse Jones of “dismissing” (i.e. rejecting as a contributing author) one qualified expert who, supposedly in Jones’s own words, “has done a lot, but I don’t trust him.” But the record clearly shows that it was Trenberth who made that last comment, and that he was expressing misgivings about the quality of the researcher’s work, not whether he was on the “right side” of scientific issues. And the expert in question, climatologist Joel Norris, was in fact selected by Trenberth as a contributing author. Even worse, McKitrick has reversed the order of the Jones quotes, taken them out of context, and then juxtaposed them to make it appear as if they were part of the same exchange. Meanwhile, an examination of the two separate email discussions show chapter co-ordinators trying to fill out their team with authors who will be able to contribute effectively, in complete contradiction to McKitrick’s central thesis."

       So, McIntyre has misattributed quotes, taken them out of context, and stitched them together out of chronological order to aid misinterpretation. Further, he ignores the fact that the person discussed was in fact accepted as a contributing author, thus invalidating his thesis. It has long been my firm belief that out of context quotations are simply a form of lying. So while Tamino gives us clear analysis of statistical issues relating to climate science, McIntyre gives use data (in this case quotations) deliberately out presented out of context with intent to deceive. That is why it is inappropriate to use McIntyre as a source, but appropriate to use Tamino.
69400. muoncounter at 12:59 PM on 29 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
       skept.fr#18: "I've a limited trust in any argument based on a blog article, whatever the blog," So by your logic, we need to have limited trust in your arguments as well? The differences should be abundantly clear. On this blog (or tamino, neven, science of doom, etc), anything technical is solidly supported. If you show up with a pet theory that makes no sense (and there are plenty of those characters), you will be rebutted with the science that shows you make no sense. On the McIntyres, Goddards, Currys, Watts, etc, there is plenty of opinion, distraction, disinformation and hot air and very little in the way of solid scientific support. But I suppose you are free to buy your soap from the store of your choice. My observation is that someone like tamino knows a heck of a lot more about what he does than I do -- and I can learn from that.

Prev  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  1387  1388  1389  1390  1391  1392  1393  1394  1395  Next