Recent Comments

Prev  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  Next

Comments 69951 to 70000:

69951. scaddenp at 17:37 PM on 21 November 2011
       The 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.
69952. skywatcher at 16:58 PM on 21 November 2011
       Incredible 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!
69953. skywatcher at 16:53 PM on 21 November 2011
       The 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 the warmist scientific 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?
69954. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 16:21 PM on 21 November 2011
       The 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.
69955. DrTsk at 16:03 PM on 21 November 2011
       Congressional 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...
69956. DrTsk at 15:46 PM on 21 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       Doug#3. You seem like a reasonable person to me!! And you say you are not a scientist. Well you do have the capacity to become one, given your logical analysis and understanding that one should first question their own results over and over and over until fully satisfied of their truth. Why would you think I was referring to you?? Unless you are part of the minority group that spreads disinformation and false myths to manipulate the honest truth seeking people that try to make sense of the whole complex thing.
69957. skywatcher at 15:05 PM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       Arkadiusz #7, you are once again caught trying to misrepresent the data presented in a paper. You're ignoring the assessment of errors and the transfer functions associated with the relevant proxies, and the assessment of the authors of Rundgren et al 2005. They talk of rapid CO2 oscillations of ~40ppm, while you inflate this to 190ppm by using the maximal ends of their error bars (and inflating one ened by 10ppm too). The assessment of Rundgren et al is in fine agreement with the mention of CO2 in this article, being between ~250 and ~300ppm, just as mentioned in the article above. I caught you misrepresenting the CO2 measurements of a paper in this article, so this seems to be a habit of yours. Did you think nobody would read the paper and check your statements?
69958. John Hartz at 14:53 PM on 21 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       Climate change effect on release of CO2 from peat far greater than assumed Drought causes peat to release far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than has previously been realised. Much of the world's peatlands lie in regions predicted to experience increased frequency and severity of drought as a result of climate change- leading to the peat drying out and releasing vast stores of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It's the very wetness of the peat that has kept the air out, locking in centuries of carbon dioxide that would normally be released from the decomposing plant materials in the peat. Now scientists at Bangor University have discovered that the effect of periods of severe drought lasts far beyond the initial drought itself. Writing in Nature Geosciences (doi 10.1038 NGEO1323), Dr Nathalie Fenner and Professor Chris Freeman of Bangor University explain how the drought causes an increase in the rate of release of CO2 for possibly as long as a decade. It was originally assumed that most of the CO2 was released from the dry peat. Now scientists realise that the release of CO2 continues, and may even increase, when the peat is re-wetted with the arrival of rain. The carbon is lost to the atmosphere as CO2 and methane and to the waters that drain peatlands as dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Source: “Climate change effect on release of CO2 from peat far greater than assumed” Eureka Alert, Nov 20, 2011 To access the article in its entirety, click here
69959. Daniel Bailey at 14:25 PM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       @ muoncounter Deucedly inconvenient, that. One can hardly go placing accusations of pots being black when one has numerous black kettles of one's own. Shades of specks and planks...
69960. KR at 14:24 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman - I have also ceased to respond to your postings, as they match a repeated pattern: * Focus on single sites, short time periods, etc. * Lack of any statistical basis. * Decrying actual statistics upon the "strength" of your tiny data focus. * Not understanding, reacting to, or incorporating any of the very good advice you have received from people with much better statistical backgrounds than you have evinced. It is clear to me that you are operating from a state of confirmation bias, dismissing willy-nilly any data contrary to your beliefs, and supporting your position with cherry-picked examples of such tiny extent and duration to be laughably irrelevant. A prime example was your search through the historic records for extreme weather events, not considering the statistics of how frequently these events occur - an entirely worthless argument when the statistics (frequency of occurrence) are what are being discussed. Until you recognize the need for statistics, and for proper consideration of the greater body of data, your postings will continue to be a rather pointless assertion of your beliefs, lacking numeric support. My apologies for the tone of this post - but you have not shown any ability to learn from the information you have been pointed to. And your postings represent errors that might take in those with no statistic backgrounds; perhaps the only relevance on this forum - they need to be properly dismissed.
69961. muoncounter at 14:09 PM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       DB#23: A few minutes on TIS' website reveals quite a lot of name-calling, derision, accusations of fraud, etc. In general, the weaker the argument, the more the need to resort to such tactics.
69962. John Hartz at 14:00 PM on 21 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       A new study led by University of British Columbia researchers reveals how the effect of climate change can further impact the economic viability of current fisheries practices. "Fisheries are already providing fewer fish and making less money than they could if we curbed overfishing," says Rashid Sumaila, principal investigator of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC and lead author of the study. "We could be earning interest, but instead we're fishing away the capital. Climate change is likely to cause more losses unless we choose to act." Partly supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts, National Geographic, the World Bank and U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the study is a broad view of the impact of climate change on fisheries and their profitability. It is published online today in the journal Nature Climate Change. Source: “Effects of climate change to further degrade fisheries resources: UBC researchers” Eureka Alert, Nov 20, 2011 To access the article in its entirety, click here
69963. muoncounter at 13:59 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman#94: Simply taking the area of a state and assuming all of the state is equally hot or extremely hot is a very flawed methodology. For example, Montana varies in elevation from 1800 ft to 12799 ft ASL; do you think that all of that large state's area was 'record warmest'? Is 'record warmest' the same as 'extremely hot'? Again you have demonstrated the same MO: If you cannot duplicate the work of an expert analysis on the back of an envelope, the experts must be wrong. When was the last time you flew in an airplane - do you try to duplicate the blueprints and schematics before boarding? Do you verify the flight plan? What is there about the possibility that Hansen et al are right that is so disturbing to you?
69964. Daniel Bailey at 13:55 PM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       @ The Inconvenient Skeptic

       "Whenever a scientist presents evidence (some is good, some is not) that casts any doubt on Global Warming, then they are savaged."

       Please present evidence of this very much unsupported assertion. That would be the scientific thing to do, to actually have evidence to back up assertions. Right?

       "Many articles on this site are simply attack articles that use derision of the opposition as a tactic."

       IBID. More evidence-free assertions.

       "Name calling is NOT how to encourage a constructive dialog. "

       IBID, Part Deux.

       "there is an equally large number of people who believe in global warming and don't understand anything about the science they are choosing to believe. That you had to reduce the technical content to make it readable is evidence of that. "

       You speak to the whole Raison d'être for Skeptical Science: to communicate the literature of climate science to the layperson...and to debunk the myths and dissemblings of the skeptics and fake-skeptics. You also falsely imply that those who "believe" in (the established fact of) global warming therefore do not understand the science that they are believing (thus equivocating it to belief in religion). Or do you a reference for that implication?

       "When Daniel Bailey (#13) makes his comments about fake skeptics (while not sure if he lumps me into that group) and their abandonment of reason and logic, it is derision. "

       Actually, it is my personal opinion. And it is an assessment of the breakdown of reason and logic on the part of the fake-skeptics, based on their statements and writings. Beyond that, I can't be bothered to take anything personally enough anymore to take the time to foment actual derision. Life's too short and my time is too valuable.
69965. Smutsie at 13:47 PM on 21 November 2011
       Cardinal Pell needs to practise what he preaches on climate change
       Greetings from Sydney, Australia. Forget about the Science when it comes to Cardinal Pell, it's all about Australian Federal Politics. Cardinal Pell is closely linked to the Leader of the Federal Opposition Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, a former seminarian, (and nothing wrong with that). Tony Abbott, somewhat devoid on the policy front, has adopted a position of NO to all Labour Government intitiatives, including a Price on Carbon. He also has strong links to big business, mining companies, etc. (you get the drift). Other Opposition Members, such as former leader Malcolm Turnbull, were in favour of a Price on Carbon. Tony Abbott vacillates on AGW, depending on who his audience is at a particular time & place. All about Politics, alas, and nothing about the Science.
69966. John Hartz at 13:46 PM on 21 November 2011
       World Energy Outlook 2011: “The door to 2°C is closing”
       We will only achieve the target of limiting global warming to safe levels if carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall within the next two decades and eventually decrease to zero. That is the stark message from research by an international team of scientists, led by the University of Exeter, published today (20 November) in the journal Nature Climate Change. The research focuses on the scale of carbon emission reduction needed to keep future global warming at no more than two degrees Celsius over average temperatures prior to the Industrial Revolution. This target is now almost universally accepted as a safe limit. The team examined the extent to which carbon emissions should be reduced, how steep this reduction needs to be and how soon we should begin. They used mathematical modelling techniques to construct a number of possible future scenarios, based on different assumptions on emissions reduction. They accounted for a likely range of climate sensitivities: the amount of warming for a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The research shows how quickly emissions need to drop in the next few decades. It also highlights how remaining emissions could cause the two-degrees target to be exceeded in the long term, over the next few hundred years. Source: “Limited options for meeting 2°C warming target, warn climate change experts” Eureka Alert, Nov 20, 2011 To access the article in its entirety, click here
69967. bit_pattern at 13:44 PM on 21 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       Does anyone else feel that the more organised deniers have already synthesised this information for their own nefarious and polar opposite ends of disseminating misinformation?
69968. skywatcher at 13:42 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Well said Tom #94, To add to poor eyecrometer use, the maps presented by Norman in '86 are in equirectangular (geographic) projection, which vastly exxagerates far northern areas and is definitely unsuitable for eyeballing. On a side note, I wish Hansen would not use it as it can be misleading to the eyeball (even though he has the correct statistical analysis).
69969. Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman @95: 1) The variability in temperature increases with higher latitude, so yes, "verall summer temps are much more variable in South Dakota than Texas" unless something very unusual is going on in either North Dakota or Texas. As Texas is coastal, and North Dakota is not, that is another reason to expect greater variability in North Dakota. Why is it that when you gain a little piece of knowledge that appears, with your limited information, to contradict an expert in the subject, that you automatically assume the expert is wrong. It would be wiser, and considerably less arrogant to assume the expert may know some other relevant fact that you don't. 2) To compare with Hansen's graph, you need to use the anomaly over the "period of climatology", ie, 1951-1980. Comparing to the mean of some other period makes it an apples and oranges comparison.
69970. skywatcher at 13:37 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       So by #95, you're still failing to distinguish anomalies from extremes, despite claiming to know the difference. Well done Norman. And of course you're diverting attention away from the global analysis by Hansen et al which empirically shows you to be wrong on the increase in extreme events. You haven't produced the statistics to support your assertions about the US, which in this case would need to cover all the US, giving # standard deviations from the mean. That's pretty poor, really.
69971. Tom Curtis at 13:34 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman, the area of the US that was Hot in 1936 was 92%, compared to 75% in 2011. The area that was Very Hot was 32% in 21936, compared to 25% in 2011. The area which was Extremely Hot was 8% in 1936, compared to 22% in 2011. That is the information you claim to have contradicted. However, in "contradicting" that evidence you have: a) Consistently focused on the contiguous states of the United States, whereas the Hansen data is stated as being for the United States (and hence including Alaska and Hawaii). b) You have persistently focused on temperature anomaly instead of the standard deviation. Hot is defined as > 0.43 standard deviations, Very hot is > 2 standard deviations, and Extremely Hot is > 3 standard deviations. Because temperature varies more at high latitudes than at low, an equivalent variation in anomaly in more northerly states will result in a lower increase in terms of standard deviations compared to the same variation in more southerly states. As the heatwave was in more northerly states than southerly in 1936, and the reverse in 2011, it follows that a simple comparison of anomalies cannot test Hansen's claim in any way. Indeed, that fact makes it more likely that Hansen's claim is correct. That is, to the extent you are showing anything, you are confirming rather than contradicting Hansen. c) Whatever confirmation exists is minimal, however, because neither an anomaly nor a record is a variation measured as a standard deviation. Absent evidence of the standard deviation of temperatures of the various sites, the anomaly information cannot contradict or confirm Hansen's claim. Finally, d) the maps you have shown have all employed a mercartor projection which exagerates the size of northern states relative to southern states. It is absurd, therefore, to think a simple eyeball comparison can tell you which area is larger if they are at all close. So, although you claim to know the difference between an anomaly and a standard deviation, you act as though you don't. Either you do not understand what you think you know, or you are being deliberately deceitful.
69972. Norman at 12:53 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       michael sweet, I did further research on the temperatures above average. 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. (If I can find a long list of summer temps I can actually calculate the standard deviations for the state...The NOAA graphs above list all the states average temps for a given year but I do not have enough time to generate 100 graphs to determine the summer standard deviations for Texas and South Dakota. Using this source. I am able to determine how much above the avearage 1936 and 2011 were for select states. Average South Dakota (this is where the anomaly for 1936 was greatest) summer temp is 69.9 F. In 1936 the average temp was 76.8 F. The departure from the mean was 6.9 F. Texas average summer temp is 81.1 F. In 2011 summer the temperature was 86.7 the departure from the average is 5.6 F (Oklahoma in 2011 was 7.2 F warmer than average while Nebraska was 6.0 F above normal)
69973. Tom Curtis at 12:51 PM on 21 November 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       tanahano @129, can I write to your employer suggesting that he pays you half your current hourly rate on Tuesdays and Thursdays. According to you, that would not represent a pay cut because your maximum dayly pay for any given week will not have been reduced. Or do you only use the statistically absurd definition of warming in which only the maximum is relevant to the trend when trying to deny global warming?
69974. Norman at 12:34 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       michael sweet @ 88, You may no longer respond to my posts. Your claim: "It has been pointed out to you previously on this thread that anomalies and standard deviations are different. If you cannot read the graph, accept that Hansen did it correctly and in 2011 there was twice as much "expremely hot" as there was in 1936. The hot areas were hotter in 2011 than 1936 (although they were similar in extent), the data proves you are wrong." This may suprise you but I actually do know the difference between anomalies and standard deviation. I have calcualated various standard deviations of data sets. A meausre of variability away from the mean. Data sets with larger ranges will have larger standard deviations. But generally very high temp anomalies will tend to be far from the mean. You state the data proves me worng. You also claim that the hot areas were hotter in 2011 than 1936. source. source. I went found the square area of the states that display record warmest temperatures. (I will assume that record warmest temp should fit the extremely hot criteria...If you want to compare temperatures from 1936 you can go to the source of the graph I posted in 43, many state records are still standing today from 1936), States that were listed as record warmest in 1936 (Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky): Total Area of these states: 492,761 square miles. States that were listed as record warmest in 2011 (New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana): Total Area of these states: 511,908 square miles. This is about a 3.7% difference.
69975. Norman at 12:12 PM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       John Hartz @ 92 Would that not make SkS an echo chamber? I do supply data for all may posts (graphs, articles). I do read the articles in posts gradually (lots of data). I do learn a lot from the highly knowledgable individuals on this sight. How does backing up my conclusions (even if somewhat different than the OP's conclusions) with data count as trolling? I am never claiming to be right or correct in my conclusions. Most think they are wrong. I think I was banned from SkS for a period of time. If that is the wish of the those running the website, it is their property and I am a guest poster. If my posts are highly offensive in nature (not sure why they would be) then I guess I should be banned. My goal is not to generate highly offensive posts. I do not insult the intelligence of any posters, I try to raise questions and ideas that come to me and it is an evolving process. I react to what other posters have said about an aspect of my posts. I start to do research on their points to see what I can find. It helps me to learn alot. It may frustrate many, sorry.
69976. Albatross at 12:03 PM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       Bibliovermis @21, You took the words out of my mouth. Excellent points. TIS can stop insulting us here by embarking on so-called tone trolling and claiming to be a "skeptic" when he is clearly not a true skeptic at all. Instead TIS should debate the science using science and facts. Usually when "skeptics" start taking offense to catchy titles etc., it is an excuse for them to not debate the science, because they do not have a compelling case and/or the science does not support their view/belief.
69977. TScanlon at 11:50 AM on 21 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       Good point Doug. I read a few of the psychology papers associated with John and Steven's handbook and noticed trial lawyers and debaters are kings of simple explanations. They frame an explanation, give you the whole picture, in a simple manner using the key facts. Not that I'm suggesting we become more like lawyers.....
69978. Bibliovermis at 11:25 AM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       TIS (#18), Being anti-science is not a binary property. Compartmentalized belief & willful ignorance in one subject does not have to affect cognitive functioning in other areas of study. The existence of people who "don't understand anything about the science they are choosing to believe" does not disprove the validity of that field of study.
69979. John Hartz at 11:25 AM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       @Tom Curtis #90: Banning Norman from posting on SkS will eliminate the problem. If trolling is not prohibited by current SkS Comment Policy, then the policy should be amended to include such a prohibition.
69980. Bob Lacatena at 11:24 AM on 21 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Pirate, The problem is that the Republicans are trying to steadfastly stick to a policy that is based on a complete lack of understanding of the science. That is unacceptable. They must either understand themselves or accept the position of the experts. One cannot make good policy from a position of ignorance.
69981. muoncounter at 11:22 AM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman#86: "I hope you don't believe I do this. I hate to automatically assume anything." Over the course of multiple threads, that is how your responses read. It appears that if you cannot duplicate in a few minutes work the published results, you dismiss them. An alternate reaction would be to consider that your methods and your data sources are not as complete as those of practicing climate scientists. If you took that approach, you might conclude that there is much to be learned. For example, I referred you to tamino's Extreme Heat post. Have you read it? If so, why are you still wed to the idea that if temperatures aren't normally distributed, we cannot identify an extreme event? With that preconceived notion, one could conclude that all is right with the world. Without that bias, one could conclude as tamino does (with the advantage of far greater understanding and abilities in statistics than both you and I), that there is much to be concerned about.
69982. Bob Lacatena at 11:21 AM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       18, An Inconvenient Skeptic,

       Many articles on this site are simply attack articles that use derision...

       Would you mind identifying them, and quoting the passages that use derision? [Note that a catchy title does not qualify. Sorry if you don't like the titles, but there's a whole lot more to the debate than that. If you're stuck on titles, you're stuck in ignorance.] Please remember to distinguish between attacks on the person and attacks on the position (which, if false, disingenuous, or down right stupid, are certainly open season for derision as long as a thorough, concise and meaningful argument is presented to demonstrate the untenable nature of the position).
69983. Bob Lacatena at 11:17 AM on 21 November 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       129, tanahano, Seriously? You actually posted that comment? Please take the time to click on the "Intermediate" tab above, read that poast in its entirety, understand it, and then get back to commenting.
69984. scaddenp at 11:02 AM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       "Whenever a scientist presents evidence (some is good, some is not) that casts any doubt on Global Warming, then they are savaged". um, please give evidence for SkS "savaging" a scientist for publishing evidence contrary to conventional climate science in a peer-reviewed publication. What does get savaged is misinformation, cherry-picking etc practised on the naive (eg Congress, public) in forums other that peer-reviewed science journals.
69985. tanahano at 10:47 AM on 21 November 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       The world has not warmed since 1998 according to UAH, RSS, and NOAA. Most weather websites have said that 1998,2005, and 2010 are a three way tie with no real difference therefore the world hasn't warmed since 1998. Even if it did...would only have been 0.02 c at most. Not significant at all.
69986. The Inconvenient Skeptic at 10:45 AM on 21 November 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Five - A Crystal Ball?
       Steve, I accept your comment as the proper clarification on insolation and appreciate your reply on the ENSO. :-) I consider this series to be unorthodox because it is so divergent from the typical article on this site. I took some heat (not surprising) for my comments about derision heaped on those that reach different conclusions, but a cursory glance at the front page of this site has plenty of articles like... Climate Denial Crock of the Week. Baked Curry Skeptics are anti-science Geologists and Climate Change Denial and so forth.... Whenever a scientist presents evidence (some is good, some is not) that casts any doubt on Global Warming, then they are savaged. Many articles on this site are simply attack articles that use derision of the opposition as a tactic. Your article actually discusses the science in a meaningful way and that is why I find it a breath of fresh air. Name calling is NOT how to encourage a constructive dialog. Your article rises above that and that is part of why I consider it unorthodox. Global Warming is a scientific hobby for me. My full-time job (which is what kept me from responding earlier) is R&D for semiconductors. It is certain that readers of this article have parts in their computer that use films or processes that I developed and more on the way. I did not deny science in developing those processes and in fact this week I created a new and vastly more complex process that could revolutionize large portions of semiconductor processing. The idea that I am anti-science would be amusing if it wasn't so foolish. When Daniel Bailey (#13) makes his comments about fake skeptics (while not sure if he lumps me into that group) and their abandonment of reason and logic, it is derision. Certainly there are people that are skeptical for the wrong reasons, but there is an equally large number of people who believe in global warming and don't understand anything about the science they are choosing to believe. That you had to reduce the technical content to make it readable is evidence of that. Just know that I appreciate your articles and look forward to anything else you might write in the future.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Savaged? Attack articles? Really?
       You should compare (silently) the type of 'savaging' that goes on at denial sites to the comments typically seen here. You will note, if you take the time to read objectively, that comments here are about the science, the data, the work done - not the individuals who do the work. If you object to such critical discussion of science, why are you here?
69987. Tom Curtis at 10:26 AM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Michael & Albatross, although I have long been convinced that Norman's "objections" are not genuinely felt, and only raised to raise doubt, never-the-less visitors to this sight who do not have a background in statistics (which I suspect is most visitors) could be deceived by his claims, particularly if they do not see clear rebuttals. This is the old conundrum. As the purpose of this site is education, if we do not limit the posting of trolling comments, of necessity we must feed the troll by rebutting them. It is tiresome and frustrating, but no amount of moderators typing "DNFTT" will remove the conundrum.
69988. scaddenp at 10:21 AM on 21 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Except... please see Its Cosmic Rays. That is the appropriate thread for the discussion but please read the article first.
69989. Doug Hutcheson at 10:14 AM on 21 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       DrTsk#1 and funglestrumpet#2 I'm not generally regarded as stupid, but I am not a trained scientist. I spent my career as a successful computer analyst/programmer, indicating I have at least a logical and, I hope, open mind. I find simple information to be more easily digested than technical detail. For example, I would not know where to start in order to analyse satellite temperature records, but I do understand that the upper atmosphere is cooling because less heat is reaching it from the Earth's surface. It is not the pure science which informs me, it is the logical ideas extrapolated from the science. (I expect I could learn how to analyse the data, or even understand computer climate models, but I would still not be a scientist. In fact, I would be dangerous, as I might not notice if my results were wrong.) Of course, being unable to process the data myself, I rely upon those who can understand them to simplify their results for me in a reasonable, prudent manner. Being a cautious type, I like to see at least a second opinion and, preferably, a consensus. That is why I like following this site: I get to read many points of view and see plenty of discussion, so that I can come to my own decisions based on a weight of evidence. Moral: Keep it simple in order to inform the widest audience. You never know when your latest convert will become a leader of popular thinking.
69990. Albatross at 09:57 AM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Michael @88, "I reviewed your prior posts and I am going to remove myself from this discussion. I see no point in discussing data with someone who does not know how to look at data." You are not the only one Michael. Rightly or wrongly, I gave up trying to discuss the science and statistics with Norman a long time ago.
69991. dana1981 at 09:55 AM on 21 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       apirate - what was posted in the article were some examples of issues which congressional Republicans apparently think are more important than attending a climate science briefing or holding a hearing on the issue. Among those was declaring pizza a vegetable (or 'vegetable dish', if you prefer). While I think that action is utterly stupid, and think it's astonishing that you would defend it (especially since, if I recall correctly, you're a teacher whose students' health will be adversely impacted by this decision), the point of the article was a) the discussion of climate science at the briefing, and b) the universal congressional Republican anti-science stance While it would have been nice for congressional Democrats to have attended the briefing, congressional Democrats have already voted to pass a climate bill, and have repeatedly tried to hold a climate hearing during this congressional session, only to be denied by the Republicans. 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. Henceforth I suggest we all abide by the policy DNFTT.
69992. TruthAtLast at 09:20 AM on 21 November 2011
       Climate's changed before
       Solar activity doesn't just warm the earth, it can also COOL the Earth by solar winds, which are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and then divert cosmic rays. Normally, cosmic rays strike the oceans, increasing water-vapor in the atmosphere, and thus causing it to absorb more sunlight and warm slightly; but when solar-plasma ejection reduces, then the earth's water-vapor increases. And as your site says, solar activity has decreased. This means that the Earth is being subjected to greater cosmic winds, and this explains the increased water-vapor and temperatures.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your information on cosmic rays is severely incorrect. Please read the thread scaddenp references. Also please note that this is a science-based site; claims such as 'normally cosmic rays strike the oceans,' which run contrary to much that is known about cosmic rays, must be substantiated - on the appropriate thread.
69993. actually thoughtful at 07:52 AM on 21 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       Apirate - this is actually a classic case of one party claiming the exact opposite of what is happening. Democrats, when they had control of the House, passed comprehensive cap and trade legislation (which had pros and cons). Now they are actively working to get America back to work. Republicans fought cap and trade, and publicly complain that the scientifically established fact of man-made climate change is a HOAX. So Republicans NEED the education offered at the committee meeting, while the Democrats, while they might benefit, don't NEED it. Meanwhile, whatever the Republicans are doing in the House, it is objectively true that it is not creating jobs (source: US unemployment level - unchanged since the Republicans ascent to power in 2010). You seem to be falling for the fallacy of false equivalence. While a pox on both their houses seems satisfying, it ignores the fact that one political party is actively against science, and one is not. I continue to be surprised that you, a science teacher, keep finding yourself more compatible with the party on record as against science.
69994. scaddenp at 07:52 AM on 21 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       When all this denial leads to massive issues for the next generation, one wonders what the legacy of this generation will be. For Republican's especially, it would seem likely they will be regarded much as Germany's post-war generation regard (and disrespect) the wartime generation - "how could they be so deluded"
69995. funglestrumpet at 07:31 AM on 21 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." Said by the Stupid
69996. michael sweet at 07:04 AM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       Norman: I reviewed your prior posts and I am going to remove myself from this discussion. I see no point in discussing data with someone who does not know how to look at data. For example, in your post 86 above you show two graphs which are clearly labeled [degrees C] anomaly and then you conclude "I still do not see an area twice as large for extremely hot in 2011 summer as compared to 1936 summer". Extremely hot is a designation of a variation of standard deviation. It is impossible to look at a graph of anomaly and reach an understanding of standard deviation. It has been pointed out to you previously on this thread that anomalies and standard deviations are different. If you cannot read the graph, accept that Hansen did it correctly and in 2011 there was twice as much "expremely hot" as there was in 1936. The hot areas were hotter in 2011 than 1936 (although they were similar in extent), the data proves you are wrong. If I look at a table of watermellons and I conclude that all oranges are the same, how far have I advnaced the discussion? You must understand statistical arguments to argue statistics.
69997. DrTsk at 07:02 AM on 21 November 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 3: The Overkill Backfire Effect
       Keep It Simple for the Stupid
69998. Norman at 06:40 AM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       michael sweet @ 82 I was looking at the month of July averages (not single days). I was not making an attempt with that post to any larger scale phenomena. I was using this data set to get a longer period standard deviation (over 350 points of data). The goal was to demonstrate (I guess autocorrelation.) that temperatures were not random under heat wave conditions and so normal distribution was not an effective way to determine probability. A reference that may convince you is found in the muoncouter post 85 link to the Barriopedro 2011 paper. In it they show how the heat wave slowly grew in time (the previous condition influenced the following conditions...this is not a random sample when this takes place). Also from that paper: "The most evident features associated with the 2010 event were (i) quasi-stationary anticyclonic circulation anomalies over western Russia (fig. S5) and (ii) deficit of January-to-July 2010 accumulated precipitation and early spring snow cover disappearance in western-central Russia (fig. S6). High-pressure systems are well-known to produce warm conditions at surface by enhancing subsidence, solar heating, and warm-air advection (19–21). The lack of water availability results in a continuous reduction of soil moisture and enhanced sensible heat fluxes that exacerbate the strength of summer heatwaves (20–22)." With normal temperature fluctations which would fall under random events, today's temperature will not have a great effect on the temperatures of a few weeks. A cold day today will not determine if it is still cold in a week (various random weather events of moving warm and cold around will be much more influential). But with the heat wave it is a pattern that will continue to heat as long as the pattern remains in place. Each warm day will build and make the continuous days warmer. The temperatures are connected and influence each other. I am not sure how these can then be considered random temperature fluctuations which would follow the normal distribution.
69999. Norman at 06:06 AM on 21 November 2011
       Extreme Events Increase With Global Warming
       muoncounter @ 83 "Perhaps a bigger question is this: If you do not understand something, do you automatically assume it isn't true?" I hope you don't believe I do this. I hate to automatically assume anything. I did look at all four graphs you posted. I saw on the United States graph that the 1936 heat wave was far less prominant than the 2011 heat wave in area covered (for extremely hot). Your graphs are on summertime hot area percentage. 2011 US shows 2011 summer as extremely hot in an area covering a bit more than 20% but the 1936 heat wave is shown only to cover around 10% of the area. I went to the GISS data base to investigate this and it did not seem the two graphs match. I took out the ocean temps (just land) and I lowered the smoothing to 250 km to check again and I still do not see that the 2011 summer covered twice the area for extremely hot temperatures as 1936 summer. The data set you included in your post was for the whole year. 1936 had one of the coldest winters on record so the overall temperature for the year was not that great. The graphs you posted are for summer time hot areas and have no bearing on the entire year. source. source. Even with these revised maps (no ocean temp included and better resolution on smoothing) I still do not see an area twice as large for extremely hot in 2011 summer as compared to 1936 summer. So I guess I still do not understand how the United States percentage graph, in your post at 30, was generated.
70000. JMurphy at 06:04 AM on 21 November 2011
       Congressional Climate Briefing - The End of Climate Skepticism?
       And there's another example of so-called skepticism obvious from apiratelooksat50's use of copied 'facts', especially the use of the seemingly important

       "Source: Giovannucci, Edward et al., "Intake of Carotenoids and Retinol in Relation to Risk of prostate Cancer," Journal of the National Cancer Miracle Nutrient That Can Prevent Aging, Heart Diseaseand Cancer," Advanced Research Press, Inc. 1999. Hauppauge, N.Y.".

       This seems to be a hodge-podge of several different things plastered together by someone and copied willingly by another. apiratelooksat50's source may be tomatofest.com (who I'm sure are totally unbiased in this matter !), although several sites contain the exact same wording and grammatical errors. Edward Giovannucci's publication list contains nothing from the 'Journal of the National Cancer Miracle Nutrient That Can Prevent Aging, Heart Diseaseand Cancer' (unsurprisingly) and that 'Journal' is apparently printed by Advanced Research Press, which seems to be a one-man band operation involved in fitness & health magazine publishing in Ronkonkoma, New York. So it may possibly have been re-printed in that magazine in 1999, as suggested. The paper "Intake of Carotenoids and Retinol in Relation to Risk of prostate Cancer" was actually published in 1995 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, but Giovannucci did publish another paper in the same Journal in 1999 - "Tomatoes, tomato-based products, lycopene, and cancer: review of the epidemiologic literature." So, quite a feat of so-called skepticism involving no scepticism of the source whatsoever...

Prev  1392  1393  1394  1395  1396  1397  1398  1399  1400  1401  1402  1403  1404  1405  1406  1407  Next