Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 Next
Comments 69801 to 69850:
-
Norman at 15:01 PM on 22 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
muoncounter @100 Here is a link. for the graphs posted in #94. "If you cannot duplicate the work of an expert analysis on the back of an envelope, the experts must be wrong." I do not recall in any of my posts making the claim that the experts were wrong (In this case Dr. James Hansen). My original post in #78 read "I have looked into those graphs and I do not understand how they have 2011 for US about double 1936 for extremely hot. I will agree the eyeball is not the most accurate measuring tool but it can still easily distinguish areas that are twice the size of another." I am curious as to how a lack of understanding becomes a claim the experts are wrong. Then in Post #86 I reinterate "So I guess I still do not understand how the United States percentage graph, in your post at 30, was generated." Again I am not stating Dr. Hansen's research is wrong. I am claiming I do not know how he arrived at this graph. If I do not understand something I like to start researching and work to the best of my abilities to figure it out. Questioning a graph is not the same thing as claiming the author is wrong. It must be a flaw in my style of posting. Maybe I come off as an arrogant wanna-be climatologist. I assure you that is not who I am. I do like to learn and research and validate claims (which I attempted in other threads, perhaps poorly). I recognize Tamio has great ability in the field of statistics. I understand that Hansen has a far greater degree of knowledge than I do in the area of climate. It does not forbid me from questioning their conclusions. Questioning things is the way to learn. If one does not understand something question, research and learn. As you research new worlds open up and new ideas from in the process. -
muoncounter at 14:31 PM on 22 November 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
This one's a whopper, up there in the stratosphere of myths with Singer and Seitz. Air pollution has no connection to asthma, Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul said on the Senate floor. ... Paul's chart was a graph showing air pollution declining in California as the number of people diagnosed with asthma rose. The chart attributed the data to a May 2003 paper by what was then called the California Department of Health Services. But the department never plotted the relationship between those two factors. Reaction from a childhood asthma advocacy group: As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Thus we read, “Air pollution has no connection to asthma,” Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul said on the Senate floor. ... Paul, an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon said in his remarks: “We have decreased pollution and rising incidence of asthma. Either they are inversely proportional or they are not related at all.” There's only one response to that: Wow. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:29 PM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
10, Pirate, Pielke's answer to question 2 includes this total and complete falsehood:For example, the global average temperature anomalies are cooling!
Beyond this, he puts unnecessary emphasis (as he always seems to do) on natural climate forcings. But beyond this and more importantly he mentions feedbacks in the same breath (and after) natural climate forcings as if they have nothing to do with CO2, even though those feedbacks are primarily in direct response to the CO2 forcing! When speaking to high school students, one would expect a scientist (or a science teacher) to be a little more clear and honest about the current state of the science, rather than twisting the presentation to put forth a personal position. -
actually thoughtful at 14:20 PM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
I had, up to this point, reserved some respect for Pielke, based on his scientific credentials, and the fact that a contrarian forces everyone to up their game - and climate science is too important to not be researched with our top scientists "A" game. However, the goal when teaching students is to increase their critical thinking skills. Trying to wash their brains in a given ideology is NOT critical thinking. These students are worse off than they were before Pielke spoke, based on the information presented here. He appears to have bent many, many facts in order to present a very incomplete picture of what we know, as a species, about global warming. Shame on you Dr. Pielke. -
muoncounter at 14:13 PM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
pirate#10: Except for this blatant fiction: the global average temperature anomalies are cooling! Anomalies don't cool. Even so, it is fiction: See the animated gif of temp anomaly trends (figure 1 here) and the BEST summary thread. Or just use the Curry phrasing: there is no scientific basis for saying that global average temperature anomalies are cooling. -
actually thoughtful at 14:11 PM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
Apirate - what is your evidence that the world is cooling? That seems counter to everything we know, and what we know is more than Pielke acknowledges. -
muoncounter at 14:06 PM on 22 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Tom C and Albatross: That makes three papers plus R and C verifying this statistical approach. It is interesting to read in Schaer: The dashed and full curves in Fig. 2 relate to the empirical and the fitted gaussian distributions, respectively, and their close agreement shows that the gaussian distribution is an excellent approximation to the data. ... an event like summer 2003 does not fit into the gaussian statistics spanned by the observations of the reference period, but might rather be associated with a transient change of the statistical distribution. This interpretation is consistent with the idea that small changes of the statistical distribution can yield pronounced changes in the incidence of extremes. -- emphasis added And of course, tamino's Extreme Heat post shows the same. This is called consilience of evidence. An excellent lesson in the power of statistical analysis of comprehensive datasets as opposed to back-of-the-envelope and cherrypicking. -
apiratelooksat50 at 13:59 PM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
On the first read-through, Question #2 is adequately answered. -
macoles at 13:06 PM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
Dana, great post but here's a little nitpick: "that it's caused by anything but CO2" in the second last paragraph really should be "that the primary cause is anything but CO2". In no way does Pielke totally ignore CO2 as the original line suggests. -
John Hartz at 12:58 PM on 22 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
“Science-averse Republicans have once again blocked the establishment of a National Climate Service by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, moving from denial of man-made climate change to the denial of climate itself. “I’m very concerned that NOAA has taken steps to form what amounts to a shadow climate service operation,” House science committee chair Ralph Hall (R-TX) cried in September. At a hearing in June, Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) blasted the budget-neutral plan to consolidate NOAA’s existing, widely dispersed, climate capabilities under a single management structure as “propaganda services.” In the committee report submitted by appropriations chair Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) for the 2012 budget, the National Climate Service is expressly forbidden. Source: “GOP Deniers Block Creation Of Climate Service” Think Progress, Nov 21, 2011 To access the entire article, click here. -
Tom Curtis at 11:58 AM on 22 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Albatross @105, the results of Hansen et 2011 as shown by DB inline earlier on this thread also show greater variability of temperatures. -
Albatross at 11:32 AM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
Dana, I'm curious to see if Pielke is going to try and spin this on his blog, or even worse, at a misinformation site like WUWT. Wouldn't that be ironic....The easy and honourable thing for Pielke to do would be to admit error, revise his response to the high school in question and apologize. I am also very curious to know whether his interactions with the high school was done on his own initiative or was it done as part of the Interdisciplinary Education and Outreach programs run by CIRES ( Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences)? Pielke is currently affiliated with CIRES. I would argue that his misinformation exercise is not consistent with their mission statement (in addition to that of NOAA, CIRES is a joint institute of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado at Boulder): "Our goal is to support exemplary science education at all levels, encourage curiosity and understanding about our environment, and to bring our research to bear as a resource in service of societal needs, including education." In my opinion, his responses to the students represent the very antithesis of education or public service. -
Albatross at 10:50 AM on 22 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
Muoncounter @104, Now that is interesting, from Schar et al's (2004) abstract: "We find that an event like that of summer 2003 is statistically extremely unlikely, even when the observed warming is taken into account. We propose that a regime with an increased variability of temperatures(in addition to increases in mean temperature) may be able to account for summer 2003. To test this proposal, we simulate possible future European climate with a regional climate model in a scenario with increased atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations, and find that temperature variability increases by up to 100%, with maximum changes in central and eastern Europe." Now this is the interesting part, Medvigya and Beaulieu (2011) just reported that global weather has become more variable since 1984, a period of relatively rapid warming. "The changes in high-frequency climate variability identified here have consequences for any process depending nonlinearly on climate, including solar energy production and terrestrial ecosystem photosynthesis." Medvigy and Beaulieu did not look into a connection with CO2 forcing, but Schar et al. (2004) did find a connection in their work between increased GHG forcing and temperature variability. So background warming plus increased variability could explain quite a bit of what is going on here in terms of the recent spate of exceptional temperature extremes. -
muoncounter at 10:33 AM on 22 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
In another paper, Schaer et al 2004 demonstrate that long term warming results in an increased variability in temperature anomalies and that extreme events stand out. One expression of this warming is the observed increase in the occurrence of heatwaves. Conceptually this increase is understood as a shift of the statistical distribution towards warmer temperatures, while changes in the width of the distribution are often considered small. Here we show that this framework fails to explain the record-breaking central European summer temperatures in 2003, although it is consistent with observations from previous years. We find that an event like that of summer 2003 is statistically extremely unlikely, even when the observed warming is taken into account. We propose that a regime with an increased variability of temperatures (in addition to increases in mean temperature) may be able to account for summer 2003. And that was prior to the European heatwaves of 2006 and 2010. As they say, the hot just get hotter. Their distribution curves (figures 1 and 3) are remarkably similar to the ones shown here; their outlier graph (figure 4) is remarkably like the one posted by John Nielsen-Gammon for Texas 2011. -
Albatross at 10:13 AM on 22 November 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
Contrary to certain absurd claims being made by "skeptics", the climate system has continued to accumulate energy since the cherry-picked 1998. In fact, between 1998 and 2008 another ~50x10^21 Joules of energy were accumulated/retained in the climate system, despite an increase in aerosol loading since 2000 and a prolonged solar minimum after solar cycle 23 (since 2003).
[Source]
-
Albatross at 08:41 AM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
Dana @6, Steve was probably referring to a claim that was trumpeted by "skeptics" on the internet back in late 2009 that "Al Gore admits that the majority of global warming that occurred until 2001 was not primarily caused by CO2". The number quoted there is 40%. Either way those data are 10 years old now, and yes the amount of net positive radiative forcing is not the same as the amount of warming. Concerning the glacier mass balance numbers in Fig.3, they have continued to decline since 2005 when the graph terminates. Between 2005 and 2009 they lost another 3 metres water equivalent. None of this challenges the fact that Dr. Pielke grossly distorted and misrepresented the facts thereby misinforming students. -
dana1981 at 08:19 AM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
SteveFunk @2 - I assume you're referring to Figure 3, not Figure 2. Figure 3 is in units of meters of water equivalent (m w.e.), not gigatons. For further details on global glacier mass decline, I recommend the World Glacer Monitoring Service, from which Figure 3 came. I suspect you're misinterpreting Al Gore's book. By our calculations, CO2 is responsible for approximately 48% of the net positive radiative forcing, which may be the figure you're referencing. This is not the same as the amount of warming due to CO2. -
Albatross at 07:41 AM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
Hi SteveFunk @2, Sorry to read that you are not disturbed by Pielke's antics. This post is about Dr. Pielke misinforming impressionable high school students, not Al Gore. Please stop trying to obfuscate and distract people from Pielke's misinformation. Thanks. -
Albatross at 07:39 AM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
WheelsOC, Good observations. -
scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 22 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
"Would that not make SkS an echo chamber?" I would say that SkS is indeed proudly the echo chamber for published science as opposed to misinformation. -
scaddenp at 07:16 AM on 22 November 2011The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
Just to further reiterate the point. The rebuttals in links like Lindzen Illusions, Spencer Slip-Ups, Christy Crocks are not to statements they have made in published literature but to misinformation they stated in public forums. And since you are not impressed by Mann's tree ring data, perhaps you would like to discuss (on the correct thread) the published papers that have led you to this position. I would sincerely hope that since you respect science that your position is based on some published science and not blog commentary. -
WheelsOC at 07:04 AM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
I'm sure Dr. Pielke saw his answers as promoting nuance and a do-it-yourself encouragement to engage in scientific thinking. But when you're asked straight questions about whether global warming is happening and you don't answer "Yes," that's obfuscation. When you recommend unscientific and statistically backwards criticisms of climate models, that's promoting anti-science in place of the real deal. Likewise, his claim about cooling is anti-science (unscientific, statistically backwards). He might as well have recommended a Duane Gish book as reading material to a question about evolution and said that there are no beneficial mutations. I've become very disappointed the more closely I watch credentialed scientists of the "skeptical" camp lately. Spencer, Curry, and Pielke all seem to be retreating from genuine scientific thinking and literature at an alarming pace, leaving their real skepticism at the door. They're going in the Lindzen direction. -
SteveFunk at 07:02 AM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
Al Gore's book (actuallly written by a team of scientists under his direction) Says 43% of warming is attributable to CO2. It's the largest single influence, but less than half. Figure 2 is meaningless without some context. Does a 20 gigaton decline in glacier mass represent a loss of 1%, 30% or something in between. -
les at 06:55 AM on 22 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
41 - moderator DB I appologuse for serving up that somewhat cheesy diversion. Although I think that apirates splenetic defense is illustrative... ... and I've learned a new word. -
skept.fr at 06:30 AM on 22 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
John : I totally agree with your contextualization. And I must add for a broader context: the 164 scenarios run for the IPPC report on renewable energy (SRREN 2011), including Teske model [r]Evolution and IEA WEO2009 as the baseline, disagree quite strongly with each other concerning the sustainable level of RE in energy mix for a 450 ppm scenario in 2050. This can be observed in page 19 of the Summary for Policymakers (approx. factor 4 of total dispersion for what we can supply with RE alone, around a mean value of 248 EJ/y). The Sven Teske model [r]Evolution has by far the most ambitious RE production, 428 EJ/y in 2050, but far away the median value and out the inter-quartile range (25th to 75th percentile). So we must suppose some experts are very critical of Teske model, as well as Teske himself is very critical of IEA model (your quote). That is to say : there is no consensus among economy-energy experts for the definition of solutions (as opposed to the consensus among climate experts for the definition of the problem). Of course, part of this dissensus is political by nature – as for example the well-known Greenpeace opposition to nuclear. But for the moment, it is not clear if the are also 'technical' dissensus among experts. The problem of an energy-economy model is not just to produce energy, because hypothetical limits on Earth are far greater that what we consume now, but to produce energy a) in a sustainable way from known technologies ; b) so as to meet basic needs in all sectors of activity ; c) in a given hypothesis of demographic and economic growth. As all citizens of one of the most experienced region in decarbonization (European Union), with Kyoto Protocol and the 20-20-20 Climate-Energy Plan for 2020, I observe the complexity and difficulty of such a transition in a large scale. For exemple, Peters et al 2011 have shown that EU met the (very modest) Kyoto targets only if the 'grey energy' from trade (imports) is excluded of the budget. -
Albatross at 06:08 AM on 22 November 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
Hi Charlie, Not yet i'm afraid. I know that a couple of groups have been emailed but, to my knowledge, they have not replied yet. Having to wait this long for them to reply is a little annoying. -
Charlie A at 05:58 AM on 22 November 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
Figure 2 of this article has the caption "Fig. 2 Actual and projected loss of permafrost. .." As I noted 3 weeks ago, all of the data in the figure, including the "actual" permafrost areas for the 20th century appear to be simulations. Although the caption says "Courtesy UNEP/GRID-Arendal ", the original graphic appears to have been generated by the World Wildlife Fund. Has SkS been able to determine the actual source of Figure 2 and the source of the "historical" data? -
noble_serf at 05:53 AM on 22 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
As part of my job, I help people prepare to lead or participate in public meetings or in press interviews. One of the things we talk about with them is "splenetics" -- in our definition these are people who, no matter what you say, will disagree and try to stop you or block you from having an honest debate or rally others to prevent consensus. We always demonstrate to them that how you deal with a "splenetic" person has a heavy influence on the fence-sitters or middle-of-the-road people. Ask a person to get out or have one of your staff pull them to a side bar and the crowd becomes suspicious and supportive of them. Absorb their wild opinions, personal insults or distorted facts while deflecting their hostility to you back to the facts of the situation, and eventually the group will police them up for you. (This is sort of what Mr. Gore was hinting at when he said to handle climate deniers as you would a racist person, by deflecting their hatred back to facts/reality/consensus, but that attempt to communicate backfired for him as it was sent through the media filter. Whoever advised him to inject racism into a talking point should be given office coffee pot duty for a year.) I don't know if this would help in the AGW communication efforts, but it is a great techique for group discussions or panels when someone attempts to wrench the works. -
muoncounter at 04:54 AM on 22 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
pirate: "saying they are anti-science is the same. It is all politics which should never be confused with science." No one here is confused. Look here for choice examples of anti-science positions. -
Steve L at 04:42 AM on 22 November 2011Pielke Sr. Misinforms High School Students
Figure 2 y-axis seems incorrectly labeled -- anomalies are not in the 10M sq km range.Response:[dana1981] You're right, that should say "extent", not "anomaly". I'll correct that tonight.
-
John Hartz at 04:33 AM on 22 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
@skept.fr #47: Thank you for the link to Sven Teske's paper, "Energy [R]evolution vs. IEA World Energy Outlook scenario 2011." To provide context for others following this discussion, Sven Teske is the senior energy expert Greenpeace International. Greenpeace, the German Space Agency (DLR), and the European Renewable Energy Council joined forces in 2007 to produce global, regional, and national “Energy [R]evolution scenarios”. Each dives deep into an entity’s current energy demand and supply structure and develops a renewable energy strategy, unfolding in 10 year steps up to 2050. As documented in the paper cited above, Teske has been highly critical of the World Energy Outlook scenarios generated in recent years by the IEA. In addition, as evidenced by the following quote, Teske is highly critical of the IEA. “IEA has been driven by political agendas to keep a prominent role of nuclear power and CO2-capturing coal power plants in its scenarios, despite their obvious failure to deliver against false expectations. Although since past four or five years, each new WEO edition somewhat increases its projections for renewables and downscales its projections for “false hope technologies” such as CCS and nuclear, it still plays the tune of unrealistic nuclear growth scenarios and unjustified horror scenarios of increased costs and greenhouse gas emissions in the case of a nuclear phaseouts”, says Sven Teske, senior energy expert Greenpeace International. -
dana1981 at 04:04 AM on 22 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
apirate claims:"saying [Republican politicians] are anti-science is [disingenuous and inaccurate]."
Actually it's factually accurate, as we have demonstrated repeatedly (see the above post and the links therein). Would you care to defend your false assertion that they are not anti-science, considering that for example, they voted to deny that "climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for public health and welfare"? -
Tom Curtis at 03:46 AM on 22 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
pirate @40: 1) The wording of the act prevents any volume limit being placed on how much tomato paste or puree must be included before a meal can be considered a vegetable meal. Include a drop of tomato paste in your hotdog recipe, and hey presto!, the hotdog counts as a vegetable meal. The act is obviously absurd on that basis. 2) The whole act is obviously a compromise between many competing interests. The question, then, is not how voted for the overall compromise package (in committee stage or in Congress) but who put the amendment into the bill in the committee stage? Was it Democrats or Republicans who insisted that they would not pass key legislation unless pizza was counted as a vegetable meal and federal money was used to feed school children excessively salty chips. If the answer to that question is not a Democrat, then all your defense of a shabby deed is revealed as so much squidding (the production of clouds of ink for concealment).Response:[DB] And let that stand as the final say on tomato sauce on this memorable thread. Anyone else is interested, they will have to submit a guest post on the topic. The tomato sauce/pizza-is-a-vegetable goalpost shift diversion is now OT.
-
John Hartz at 03:28 AM on 22 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
GENEVA — Global warming gases have hit record levels in the world’s atmosphere, with concentrations of carbon dioxide up 39 percent since the start of the industrial era in 1750, the U.N. weather agency said Monday. The new figures for 2010 from the World Meteorological Organization show that CO2 levels are now at 389 parts per million, up from about 280 parts per million a quarter-millenium ago. The levels are significant because the gases trap heat in the atmosphere. WMO Deputy Secretary-General Jeremiah Lengoasa said CO2 emissions are to blame for about four-fifths of the rise. But he noted the lag between what gets pumped into the atmosphere and its effect on climate. Source: “UN: Global concentrations of carbon dioxide at record level, exceed worst-case projections” Washington Post, Nov 21, 2011 To access the entire article, click here. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:13 AM on 22 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
Dana @ 37 No matter how you word it, you still can't get around the fact that Democrats did not attend the briefing, either. Trying to do so is nothing more than a double standard. Congress actually did not vote pizza to be a vegetable. These links here and here provide a pretty good explanation of what happened. The bill was part of a larger budget cutting measure that both Republicans and Democrats participated in. The actual language in the bill that somehow got transformed into pizza is a vegetable was "(1) requires crediting of tomato paste and puree based on volume;". The link to the actual bill is here. Between the Senate and the House there were 20 Republicans and 18 Democrats on the Committees that approved the language in the Bill before it was submitted for voting. I don't disagree that pizza loaded with salty, fatty meats and cheeses can be unhealthy. But, tomato based products are generally healthy. The articles I linked to do a good job of explaining the reasoning behind the decision. I see daily what horrible diets our schoolkids have, but what they eat here is generally better than what they get at home. We do what we can with limited budgets and provide breakfast and lunch with healthy alternatives, but the kids shy away from them. Regardless, saying that Republicans voted pizza a vegetable is disingenuous and inaccurate. Just as saying they are anti-science is the same. It is all politics which should never be confused with science. What any politician votes for can be very different from what they believe/know. It is all about getting the vote, which is why you see several of the Republicans have changed their public stance on AGW.Response:[DB] "No matter how you word it, you still can't get around the fact that Democrats did not attend the briefing, either."
No matter how you word it, the inescapable fact is that an infinitely higher percentage of Democrats attended the briefing vs. Republicans (0). But that is sophistry, like your rhetoric about tomato sauce.
"It is all about getting the vote, which is why you see several of the Republicans have changed their public stance on AGW."
Like Romney's flip-flopping to "curry" backing, perhaps?
Enough with the sauce; please focus on substantive issues directly related to the OP.
-
skept.fr at 03:00 AM on 22 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
John : here it is (pdf), not a "scientific" link (but Teske is a scientist of course, and lead author of IPCC SREN 2001). For the quote, Teske wrote in this document (p. 1) : "Both, the 550ppm and the 450ppm [IEA] scenario end in 2035 – for long term climate impacts the projection must go to 2050 at least." I agree with Teske on that, also on other arguments like the quite unrealistic (or very unlikely) case for CCS in IEA Scenario.Moderator Response: [John Hartz] CCS=carbon capture and storage -
Alexandre at 02:33 AM on 22 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
This is a great series. I'm looking forward to the manual at the end of it. It's amazing how the internet allows for interaction and development of ideas among people that would never otherwise meet. The SkS team and website are a great example of that. -
skept.fr at 00:07 AM on 22 November 2011World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
Hartz #44 : unfortunately, Sumaila paper on fisheries is not for free. It would have been an interesting example for a discussion on following questions : what are the (present and future) costs of AGW on fisheries? How does it compare (and potentialize) with overfishing, pollution, habitat degradation costs? What do we know about tipping points that could change a decreasing slope of productivity to an eventual disrupting one? What are the results for scenarios with different options for mitigation and adaptation (or for that purpose different levels of GW/preindustrial, 1,5 K, 2 K, 2,5 K, 3 K)? What are the options for global level of fisheries production projected in the future? Which energy sources can support a given level of production and with which realistic intensity at a given year in the future? We agree it's time for action, but that does not mean every action is wise nor every objective reachable. Grossly put, we can imagine reforms that rapidly (one or two decades) decrease CO2 emission by 20% or something like that. But the real difficulty is probably to maintain the slope, and to decrease further by 40%, 60%... Sven Teske (scientific coordinator of the scenario [r]Evolution) has criticized the IEA scenario on this point : 2030-2035 is a too short projection, we need to know if at least the scenario has realistic options for 2050 (on billion human more), and after that for long term stabilization at 450 ppm (or even decrease to 350 ppm as some researchers think it would be necessary).Moderator Response: [John Hartz] Please provide a a citation/link to Teske's analysis. -
DrTsk at 23:44 PM on 21 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
Look, Most scientists and Engineers are lousy teachers because they cannot connect easily with the public. That has always been a problem with all campaigns to inform the public. We need sites like this to help us find a common, simple to understand language. Who of us roll our eyes in disgust when we try to read a legal document (e.g. a contract). People can easily turn against something they do not understand (science). We are on to something here... Keep inquiring. Keep up the good work. - Peace and prosperity -
CBDunkerson at 23:20 PM on 21 November 2011The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
TIS wrote: "I am not all that impressed by Spencer's cloud theory, but I am also not impressed with Mann's tree ring work." Why? Spencer's cloud 'theory' (note: it is not a scientific theory) is contradicted by numerous studies and predicated on demonstrably false assumptions. Mann's 'tree ring work' has been confirmed by multiple studies using many different methods. So we've got two things which both still have some uncertainties, but one is contradicted by all available evidence while the other is confirmed by it... yet you are equating the two. That is not a balanced fact based position. Ditto your claims that 'SkS and Watts are both nasty'. These are false equivalencies. In reality there is no comparison. That you see these things as being equal can only mean that you've got your thumb resting very heavily on one side of the scales. -
Steve Brown at 22:58 PM on 21 November 2011The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
@The Inconvenient Skeptic I do value the conversations we've had over recent months and that we share a common interest. To the untrained eye you come across as having a reasonable argument, however to the trained eye it is obvious that you are bending over backwards to ignore a massive body of evidence that we are having a negative impact through the combustion of fossil fuels. That makes you a tad disingenuous. If I thought the people behind SkS were anything other than sincere in portraying an honest and balanced view of the science then I wouldn't be here. I think I can safely state that everyone at SkS would be absolutely thrilled and relieved if a bunch of skeptics could formulate a convincing, coherent and evidenced based rebuttal to AGW. We'd all rather be spending the rest of our lives doing somehting more constructive than playing whack-a-mole in a faux debate. -
michael sweet at 22:12 PM on 21 November 2011Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
I have a little extra time this week. I will see if I can help out Tom and Muoncounter. Please read their comments. Norman: You say "Unless you believe that the overall summer temps are much more variable in South Dakota than Texas, then the temp above average will indicate the standard deviations past the mean". With this comment you claim that Hansen has done the calculation wrong. You must provide data to support your wild claim that Hansen calculated the standard deviation wrong. Since Hansen has provided all his data on line, the procedure for making the calculation, and no-one else has claimed he has done the calculation wrong, I presume he did the calculation correctly. Hansen has posted his entire data set on the web at GISS. You say "I do not have enough time to generate 100 graphs to determine the summer standard deviations for Texas and South Dakota." If you are incapable of doing the calculations required to support your argument (which can be done on an excell spread sheet. If you are good with excell [like Hansen] you could do the entire USA at once.), you need to stop arguing. Your entire argument is that your eyeball is better than Hansens calculations. By my eyeball the very hot area is similar, which is confirmed by calculations. The Extremely Hot areas do not show up on the anomaly graph you are using so it is impossible to eyeball them as you attempt to do. To Tom and Muoncounter I will only add that Texas is much bigger than South Dakota and it is possible for most of the state to have a higher anomaly than SD and still have a lower average. Your claim to provide data on standard deviations by eyeballing anomalies is still absurd, even with state by state data (Hansen used a 250 km radius). I can eat watermellons forever and still not know what an orange tastes like. -
danno at 21:55 PM on 21 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
john, reading this makes me feel like an idiot. KISS indeed. i'm certainly going to change the way i communicate climate science because of this. -
wanyden at 21:30 PM on 21 November 2011The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
bit_pattern#5 May I suggest reading "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway, which has been recommended here in the past. -
les at 19:15 PM on 21 November 2011The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
TIS...There is little difference between the treatment that SkS gives Spencer and Lindzen and the treatment that Mann and Hansen get at Watts.
Seriously? Here are SkSs 'attacks' on Spencer which, seems to me, are purely regarding the science. Here is a link to something discussing McIntyre & Watts latest attack on Mann. IMHO, not only is this more than a 'little difference' - but, I'd suggest, anyone should want to distance them selves from the latter. -
scaddenp at 17:37 PM on 21 November 2011The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
TIS - so what examples do have of Mann misrepresenting science outside the published journals? Do you think Spenser, Lindzen and Christy would say what they do to an audience of their peers? If a "skeptic" wants some constructive dialogue then start by publishing some reasonable science - in fact that does go on - it just get refuted in other published papers. However, I cannot see how you can constructive dialog with someone who is willing to misrepresent the truth to a non-technical audience. -
skywatcher at 16:58 PM on 21 November 2011Incredible time-lapse video of Earth from space
This video just made Astronomy Picture of the Day for 21st November. APOD's a good place to be stunned by great astonomy images and waste large chunks of your day! -
skywatcher at 16:53 PM on 21 November 2011The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
TIS: I see you're not actually willing to provide evidence to support your assertions, as requested by Daniel Bailey @23. "I fully agree with the concept that this site tries to explain the science from thewarmistscientific point of view." There, fixed it for you. Funny you should resort to calling names in the same post as complaining about name-calling. That you compare this site to WUWT in terms of content and treatment speaks volumes about your ability to think critically, or discern abuse from scientific criticism. Spencer, Christy and Lindzen have made a great many errors, slip-ups, crocks and presented a good number of illusions too. Some articles here call them on that. 'Constructive dialogue' can only start when these people stop misinforming the public about the science of climate change, using all sorts of tired myths. Nobody has presented a scientific case as to why Mann is wrong, and his work has been repeatedly independently verified - do you condone the unjustified abuse heaped upon him at WUWT and elsewhere? Skeptics perpetually fail to understand the consequences of Mann being wrong: that this would mean climate sensitivity is even higher than previously thought! Oops. By the way, the day that a climate skeptic procides a sound scientific case for any of "CO2 isn't the main driver of global warming", "Warming isn't having negative consequences for food production, severe weather, coastal communities etc", "the oceans are not acidifying or sea level rising", then I will break out the champagne, I'd love to be wrong. But I need a sound science case for it, not all the mutually incompatible and easily-debunked myths that seem to be the best the skeptics can come up with. Despite the fact that the big hydrocarbon producers could easily fund just about any scientific study they liked, from Antarctica to the Marianas Trench, with their loose change, not to mention their logistical capabilities, and thus scientifically demonstrate that their product is not polluting the atmosphere, they haven't managed to do so. Inconvenient? -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 16:21 PM on 21 November 2011The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
I have taken great efforts to compliment Steve on a well put together series of articles that do a good job explaining the Eemian to the layperson. Most of what I wrote in #12 was a technical response to the article with a final bit as to why I like the series of articles. It's honest approach to the science is appreciated. Please note that I was complimentary to Steve and the series of articles. Most people are not responding to the technical points I brought up, but the tiny add-on that explains why I like the series of articles. I fully agree with the concept that this site tries to explain the science from the warmist point of view. As a concept I fully support that purpose. This series of articles is an exemplary example of that type of article. However, having sections of the website named; Lindzen Illusions, Spencer Slip-Ups, Christy Rocks and so forth is name calling. I am not all that impressed by Spencer's cloud theory, but I am also not impressed with Mann's tree ring work. Constructive dialog is not started by articles titled in such a manner. There is little difference between the treatment that SkS gives Spencer and Lindzen and the treatment that Mann and Hansen get at Watts.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please do not try to play the innocent. The response you are now receiving is due to your unwarranted criticism of this site at #18. If you are distressed by name-calling and interested only in constructive dialog, presumably you object to such phrases as 'desperate ploy,' 'really bad science,' 'hurricane stupidity,' 'fear and misinformation,' etc; all from your website.
Please confine your future commentary to issues of science; unsubstantiated criticism of the people who post on this site will be snipped or deleted wholesale. -
DrTsk at 16:03 PM on 21 November 2011Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
@dana1981 Your focus on defending Republican efforts to categorize pizza as a vegetable dish - aside from itself being utterly ludicrous - only serves to distract from the anti-science stance of the Republican Party that is the point of this post I disagree. I think it reinforces the point that most GOP'ers care more for the pockets of their benefactors (Big Oil/Big Food/Big Agro/Big Tobacc/Big Pharma..etc) than the lives of their kids and grand kids : * pizza is a vegetable * tobacco is good for you * drill baby drill with no regulations to check for spillage/polution * CO2 is good for you in large quantities * Generics are bad and many many many more examples...
Prev 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 Next
