Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 Next
Comments 71501 to 71550:
-
CBDunkerson at 03:25 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
David Lewis wrote: "I wonder why you report on the science as if one of the organizations did not exist." and "why do you write as if NCAR's view is the only one?" and "I wonder why you write as if he doesn't exist." All of these quotations contain statements by you which are false. Nobody has claimed that there is only one view on the issue. The first sentence of the article above clearly indicates that it was written specifically to clear up information about the Meehl study. Thus, your repeated 'concern' that it does not cover an entirely different study seems somewhat... odd. Particularly given your participation, with Rob no less, in other threads where the 'ignored' view was being discussed. "You people should lighten up and understand that all discussion of ideas you may not agree with or understand is not malicious." In that case, perhaps you could skip the condescending (and false) accusations? Just on the off chance that someone might think they were 'malicious'. -
Charlie A at 03:20 AM on 28 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
The caption of Figure 2, "Actual and projected loss of permafrost." is incorrect. The source of Figure 2 is not the UNEP show by SkS, but is from a non-peer reviewed report by the World Wildlife Fund. The 20th century "actual" appears to be simulated data rather than observational estimates. SkS shows the source of that figure as UNEP. UNEP gives as a source "WWF Arctic Feedbacks Report". That link leads to another WWF reference (I assume this is World Wildlife Fund, not the World Wrestling Federation). Following back another step leads to another WWF graph with 4 sections. The section with the graph used by SkS has the caption "Time series of simulated global permafrost area (excluding glacial Greenland and Antarctica)." http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/area-with-near-surface-permafrost-north-of-45-n In the inline comment in #5, moderator DB gave this paper as the source, but that paper also has only graphs of simulated permafrost area. The only observations estimate in that referenced paper is table 2, which shows an estimate of 11.2-13.5 million sq km for the 1970-1989 period while the simulations for that period range from 8.5-10.7 million sq km. Please clarify what is actually shown in the bottom half of Figure 2 of this article, and the source for that data. -
JMurphy at 03:14 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Even the belief that "a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing" is a continuation of simplistic so-called skepticism (aka denial), as yet another study shows : Rivers and streams in the United States are releasing substantially more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than previously thought. The paper, titled "Significant Efflux of Carbon Dioxide from Streams and Rivers in the United States," also indicates that as the climate heats up there will be more rain and snow, and that an increase in precipitation will result in even more terrestrial carbon flowing into rivers and streams and being released into the atmosphere. If only life was as simplistic as those so-called skeptics believe it to be... -
John Hartz at 03:09 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
@David Lewis: I found your comments/questions to be quite thoughtful and sincere. I suspect the issues you have raised will be thoroughly dicussed at the upcoming AGU meeting. -
John Hartz at 03:00 AM on 28 October 2011Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad
Kudos on an excellent synthesis of the key elements of climate change and why the major arguments made by deniers are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. -
David Lewis at 02:35 AM on 28 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
Rob Painting: I brought up my understanding of what appear to be contradictory ideas held by some scientists so I could hear what you or others had to say, if they had anything to say, so that I might, perhaps, get a deeper insight. I participate in policy discussion and I like to understand what the generally accepted "science" is as accurately as possible. In order for me to understand what is generally accepted by leading scientists, it is necessary to understand where the best scientists disagree. I also like to understand what the disagreements are as I form my own view of climate science. I'm not trying to undermine your credibility, the credibility of Dr. Trenberth or NCAR, or anyone else. For all I know, 99% of working climate scientists accept NCARs view and Hansen is out there all alone. It happens that I recently studied a number of Hansen's papers, and I've also studied a number of papers either authored or co-authored by Trenberth. So when I saw you were writing about the ideas Dr. Trenberth and NCAR have, I commented, in an attempt to find out more. I explained what I thought I understood in order to give you a starting point to explain to me where I've gone wrong, if you can. You've dismissed me as insincere, i.e. I'm trying to make a big deal out of something that isn't a big problem. I don't see where anything I'm writing about could possibly "alter anything about the underlying causes or the severity of the problem", as "skywatcher" ended his remark with. You people should lighten up and understand that all discussion of ideas you may not agree with or understand is not malicious. I have been calling for stabilizing the composition of the atmosphere since 1988. If Hansen's ideas are correct, the "Faustian bargain" that he has been concerned about for some time is far worse than his best guess as submitted to the AR4 was. (He's increased his estimate for the aerosol forcing to -1.6 W/m2 from about -1.3 W/m2, and he has reiterated his call that the actual value be measured, i.e. by saying "continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable"). If Trenberth's ideas are right, the "Faustian bargain" may be "only" as dangerous as most thought, but in that case there is "missing energy", i.e. heat is already in the system hidden in the ocean about to come back to haunt us. Either of these scenarios is disturbing. -
Ken E at 02:05 AM on 28 October 20119 Months After McLean
Defense number 10: But you weren't supposed to followup with my prediction. You are supposed to get distracted by the next pseudo scientist claiming global cooling for 2012. -
logicman at 01:28 AM on 28 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
I don't deny that the rainforest is in stress from multiple causes. That said, I would not have used the image from Greenpeace unless it could be linked to a 'boots on the ground' study of that exact location. The Rio Negro has what is probably the world's most spectacular meander system. The flood plain / meander system is constantly migrating, so it will always be possible to find drier and wetter areas. Compare for example these Wikimapia images of a farming area and an area from which the river is in retreat due to the meander system dynamics. I repeat: I do not dispute the central theme of this SkS article, I merely point out that Greenpeace may well have cherry-picked the images shown on its web site. I would have shown images of areas away from the river which show stronger and less ambiguous signs of drought stress. -
Karamanski at 01:24 AM on 28 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
"With temperatures in the tropics rising at a rate twice that of the global average (0.26°C per decade) since the 1970's" I'm confused. I thought it was the polar regions that were warming twice the global average. I read many global warming articles that said the tropics are warming more slowly than the rest of the planet. Why are the tropics warming faster than the rest of the planet if they don't have the same feedbacks like the retreat of snow and ice that the Arctic and mid-latitudes have? -
JMurphy at 00:50 AM on 28 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
Another one added to the database : "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking. I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others. However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications." S Fred Singer -
Rob Painting at 17:43 PM on 27 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
jyyh - agreed. I couldn't find any pics that I was really after. A before and after montage would be great. No go with tree die-off pics either. -
Rob Painting at 17:37 PM on 27 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
David Lewis - ditto what Skywatcher wrote. -
jyyh at 17:02 PM on 27 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
On the greenpeace image, it would be nice if they had before and after images. Negro River looks like being a quite shallow one, one can't really see the perspective (or the height of the sant/silt banks) on that image. -
skywatcher at 15:48 PM on 27 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
David Lewis, perhaps Hansen's ideas are not mentioned here because this post is largely about the Meehl 2011 paper, not about Hansen? You've written quite a few posts IIRC trying to make a big deal about the disagreements between Hansen and Trenberth, yet so far as I am aware, the disagreement is not really a big problem. Scientists disagree when the data is insufficient to point clearly to one conclusion - this happens all the time. There is a data discrepancy. Two research groups have opposing ideas on how to resolve the discrepancy. In time, one will likely be right and one wrong. It's actually possible that both are partly right here. This issue is one which will be resolved with better data, and crucially, it does not alter anything about the underlying causes or the severity of the problem. -
David Lewis at 15:20 PM on 27 October 2011Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us?
The comment of mine you link to was written to attempt to discuss a different issue, i.e. that a lot of confusion is being sown as people discuss a ten year "slowdown" of "global warming", or as in this post of yours, "hiatus" decades, when, for instance, the AR4 says the shortest period over which the global warming signal emerges from the noise is 25 years (Meehl himself seems to think 17). Scientists arguing about how to advance the science so that more can be explained about shorter time periods aren't using words precisely enough and deniers are making hay out of it. I did not offer an opinion about aerosols in Asia, although I mentioned the Kaufmann paper, in the comment you link to - perhaps you were thinking about another comment? But neither of these issues were what I was commenting on this time. I brought up Hansen's view of the potential accuracy of TOA measurement by satellite and contrasted it with Trenberth's assertion that TOA measurements are not the problem as my study of the ideas of these two scientists indicates this is the heart of the disagreement. NCAR obviously does not accept Hansen's view that the TOA measurements can't be taken as potentially accurate. Why? Instead of dismissing me as simply repeating the same thing over and over, (try to find me writing about Hansen's view of TOA measurement, anywhere, ever), you might explain why you believe Hansen is wrong about this. Or if you don't have a position on whether Hansen's critique of NCAR is correct, why do you write as if NCAR's view is the only one? This isn't like some dispute between a know nothing denier and a view of the data, i.e. the planet is warming, that is shared by every reputable scientist working actively in the field today. Hansen thinks all climate models send too much heat into the deep ocean, and all models have assumptions about aerosols that have them reflecting not enough heat out to space. All the models including his own at GISS calculate a planetary energy imbalance that is too high. NCAR scientists like Trenberth believe completely different things. Perhaps the strongest reason I have to persist in trying to get an answer out of you is I don't know what the average climate scientist actually thinks of Hansen and his current ideas. I wonder why you write as if he doesn't exist. His views are clearly diametrically opposed to yours and to the authors of the Meehl paper you are discussing. Yet you haven't commented on one of his strongest arguments against the NCAR view, and presumably, yours - i.e. what about the TOA measurements? Was the CERES data just massaged into line with preconceived beliefs, as Hansen asserts? -
muoncounter at 14:07 PM on 27 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
Jon Stewart is covering BEST on the the 10/26 Daily Show -- "Global warming is real: the debunking of ClimateGate got a total of 24 seconds of news coverage." -
Bad, Badder, BEST
Agnostic - Keep in mind the distinction I described here. Evaluating arguments, finding them lacking, and making judgements about the people pushing those arguments is not a logical fallacy: it's simply a personal judgement call. Folks are 'fair game' to be judged disingenuous, uninformed, or a wee bit mad, depending on the arguments they propound. What's not 'fair game' is to dismiss all arguments from that person based on past history or personal opinions of their character - that becomes an ad hominem fallacy. -
Riduna at 11:28 AM on 27 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic - though I assume that referring to people who question science as septics (cynicus @ 10) is a typo? Anyway, we do need to distinguish between the person and the views expressed. The latter is fair game. The former is not. -
DrTsk at 10:42 AM on 27 October 2011Not so Permanent Permafrost
@7. You are exactly right. The rate at which temperature is increasing now will affect the magnitude of the final temperature deviation. So comparing Eemian and now, the ratio of maximum global temperatures are a higher-than-linear order function of the ratio of the forcing. -
barry1487 at 10:41 AM on 27 October 2011Test your climate knowledge in free online course
Skipped straight to the exams and got one third of one question wrong in the first module by leaving out 'contribution in year to year variability in the climate system' for the question, "Which of the following is associated with the el Nino phenomenon?" As la Nina and el Nino were distinguished from each other in the exam section, I figured el Nino wasn't present every year. Ba-boww. But not too shabby for an arts dude who dropped science after 3rd year high school - thanks to realclimate, SkS, Coby, Grumbine, Tamino etc and a whole lot of generous commenters out there. -
DrTsk at 10:35 AM on 27 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
That sounds scary!! -
Daniel Bailey at 09:45 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
@ Composer99 @ 33 No, I think you pretty much have the right of it. Iams trying to turn over a new leaf and NOT deal with ALL of the softball-sized tender vittles served up by some of our visitors like Fred, thus leaving ample fancy feast for the rest of y'all. If anyone wants to partake, full portions of Fred-speak are served up on the glorious "2nd Law" thread, starting about here. Meow. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:53 AM on 27 October 2011Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
Thanks John, and others above for comments. The thermal inversion paper is interesting and counterintuitive, but maybe helps explain the strong change in decadal temperature gradient towards the North Pole, as well as the pronounced winter increase in temperature over recent decades. For those interested there's a no paywall supplement to that paper here. -
Composer99 at 07:45 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
Yet another "silver bullet" against AGW turns out to be a dud (or a can of Coors Light). And really, Fred Staples: you think John McLean would be better served by cherry-picking two data points from a cherry-picked regional dataset (in lieu of a global dataset) to attempt to disprove a global phenomenon? (If Fred Staples is satirizing the "skeptic"/denier position in an ironic, non-obvious way (e.g. Poe-ing the comment thread), consider me fooled.) -
Bob Lacatena at 07:40 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
21, Fred Staples, Let us recap the series of clearly skeptical points made by Fred et al (fill in your own definition of "skeptical" in that sentence):1) Longest record in the world measured by thermometers
Except it's not. The actual measurement he quotes wasn't even a measurement at all by an instrument of any sort, but rather a guess by reading weather diaries. No thermometer involved, in spite of his implication to the contrary.2) 1659, 2010
The numbers work quite well for him, but by looking at surrounding years, we find that 1659 was roughly average, with the ten year average from 1659 to 1668 being 9.11), while 2010 was anomalously low, with the the ten year average from 2001 to 2010 being a whopping 10.22.3) Central England
As always, location, location, location. Central England has the marvelous attribute of being so civilized that it could include temperature readings that far back in time, which is supposed to impress us and add weight to the selection. Unfortunately, too, Central England enjoys a climate that is anomalously warm for its latitude, being heavily influenced by the Gulf Stream and warmth brought in from the tropics. More importantly, it is only one location when we're talking about the entire globe -- the most favoritest cherry pick of all for skeptics citing temperatures. But this is all far too far off topic for as much time and words as I've put into it, so my apologies. I got carried away. -
muoncounter at 07:34 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
Sphaerica#27: "a salient, yet dull and empty, point." Fred's is indeed a very robust result, especially when something as straightforward as a five year moving average makes it go away. Skeptics are dedicated to scientifically robust results, aren't they? -
9 Months After McLean
Fred Staples - What a fantastic and illustrative cherry-pick! 1659 had the same temperature as 2010, a difference of 0C Hey, look, I can do it too: 1740 had a temperature of 6.84C, while 2006 had a CET temperature of 10.82C - a difference of 3.98C! Of course, neither Fred's difference of 0C or mine of ~4C is an accurate representation of a noisy signal. Going from 1800 (reasonable accuracy on the records) to 2010 using a 30 year moving average, I get a temperature increase of ~1C in the CET values. That's a reasonable, statistically supportable estimate, based on a sufficient amount of the (noisy) data. Fred - Thank you, you have clearly demonstrated the skeptic/denier tactic of cherry-picking (and the skeptic/denier willingness to do so) for anyone reading. It's always better to show a demonstration of such tactics rather than just describing them - and you have just provided that demonstration. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:27 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
28, CBDunkerson, To elaborate on your points, Manley's paper is available here. From that paper:For the first six decades to 1720 the figures are printed in italics as an indication that they must be considered less reliable, based as they are on extrapolation from the results of readings of highly imperfect instruments in uncertain exposures at a considerable distance, generally in south-east England; or on estimates based on interpretations of daily observations of wind and weather. Until June 1666 and from October 1667 to October 1668 daily observations are largely lacking. Before 1671 instrumental readings are few.
-
CBDunkerson at 07:13 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
I dug around for the source of the data JMurphy identified and it comes from a 1974 analysis by a G. Manley. Apparently he estimated monthly temperatures for the region from descriptions of snowfall, wind direction, et cetera in weather diaries and some early instrumental readings. So, not (as Fred claimed) "measured by thermometers"... which seemed fairly clear given that it pre-dated the invention of accurate thermometers. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:10 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
21, Fred Staples, 26, JMurphy, JMurphy... you are correct, but the value is a mean, so of course it can be computed to any precision. Here is the actual data from the two years in question (note that all readings in 1659 were to a precision of just one degree, as well as the anomalously cold January and December in 2010): YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN 1659 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 11.0 13.0 16.0 16.0 13.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 8.83 2010 1.4 2.8 6.1 8.8 10.7 15.2 17.1 15.3 13.8 10.3 5.2 -0.7 8.83 Here are the next ten years after 1659: 1660 0.0 4.0 6.0 9.0 11.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 13.0 10.0 6.0 5.0 9.08 1661 5.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 11.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 13.0 11.0 8.0 6.0 9.75 1662 5.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 11.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 13.0 11.0 6.0 3.0 9.50 1663 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 13.0 10.0 7.0 5.0 8.58 1664 4.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 11.0 15.0 16.0 16.0 13.0 9.0 6.0 4.0 9.33 1665 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 14.0 16.0 15.0 13.0 9.0 6.0 2.0 8.25 1666 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 11.0 15.0 18.0 17.0 14.0 11.0 6.0 3.0 9.83 1667 0.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 17.0 16.0 13.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 8.50 1668 5.0 5.0 5.0 8.0 10.0 14.0 16.0 16.0 14.0 10.0 6.0 5.0 9.50 1669 1.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 11.0 15.0 17.0 16.0 14.0 10.0 6.0 2.0 9.00 And the ten years before 2010: 2000 4.9 6.3 7.6 7.8 12.1 15.1 15.5 16.6 14.7 10.3 7.0 5.8 10.30 2001 3.2 4.4 5.2 7.7 12.6 14.3 17.2 16.8 13.4 13.3 7.5 3.6 9.93 2002 5.5 7.0 7.6 9.3 11.8 14.4 16.0 17.0 14.4 10.1 8.5 5.7 10.60 2003 4.5 3.9 7.5 9.6 12.1 16.1 17.6 18.3 14.3 9.2 8.1 4.8 10.50 2004 5.2 5.4 6.5 9.4 12.1 15.3 15.8 17.6 14.9 10.5 7.7 5.4 10.48 2005 6.0 4.3 7.2 8.9 11.4 15.5 16.9 16.2 15.2 13.1 6.2 4.4 10.44 2006 4.3 3.7 4.9 8.6 12.3 15.9 19.7 16.1 16.8 13.0 8.1 6.5 10.82 2007 7.0 5.8 7.2 11.2 11.9 15.1 15.2 15.4 13.8 10.9 7.3 4.9 10.48 2008 6.6 5.4 6.1 7.9 13.4 13.9 16.2 16.2 13.5 9.7 7.0 3.5 9.96 2009 3.0 4.1 7.0 10.0 12.1 14.8 16.1 16.6 14.2 11.6 8.7 3.1 10.11 So Fred et al succeeded in cherry picking one year of many that averages out conveniently to make a salient, yet dull and empty, point. Here is the daily updated graph from Hadley:
Click on the image to link to the Hadley page, where you can download the actual data.
It's a bit difficult to see the exact cherries the Fred selected as his equivalence points, particularly when they are masked by the clear and unambiguous rise in temperatures.
Don't you just love "skeptics" and their games?
Concerning the precision of those readings (8.83C, precisely), from Wikipedia:The earliest years of the series, from 1659 to October 1722 inclusive, for the most part only have monthly means given to the nearest degree or half a degree, though there is a small 'window' of 0.1 degree precision from 1699 to 1706 inclusive.
-
JMurphy at 06:49 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
The 8.83 C figure comes from the 'Monthly_HadCET_mean.txt (1659 on)' data available here. But it has been mentioned on WUWT, which reckoned that the Met Office were trying to hide the decline, so to speak - of course, it's the usual WUWT rubbish but it's amazing what some people will accept and post on SkS... -
Alex C at 06:46 AM on 27 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
Sinclair's tone is actually fine; what he uses are insulting words, not insulting tone. On paper his dialogue would seem to be abrasive, and it is, but what you say in a debate matters so little compared to how you say it. The benefit of his videos is that the scientific material is there, and the research is there - it doesn't detract from the persuasiveness or quality of his videos that he calls people "Junior Woodchucks" or such. Frankly some people deserve the ridicule. As to SkS v. Sinclair, I again say that on paper, as we operate, he would seem inappropriately abrasive. It's simply a different dynamic when you can talk to people. -
CBDunkerson at 05:42 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
Fred Staples wrote: "When it began in 1659, the average temperature for the year was 8.83 degrees Centigrade." I'm sure there is a logical explanation for this, but... how exactly can the CET record show an 8.83 C temperature in 1659 when Anders Celsius wasn't even born until 1701? Presumably the values were converted from some other 'scale', but what? There weren't any remotely detailed / accurate temperature scales prior to Daniel Fahrenheit's in 1724. Heck, Fahrenheit also invented the modern mercury thermometer. There were devices for 'measuring' temperature before then, but they typically had only a handful (e.g. 6) of 'degrees' (not quite detailed enough to determine an 8.83 C reading) and were sensitive to barometric pressure and other non-temperature factors. What exactly is the source for this claim? Because it doesn't seem to hold up without assuming some form of time travel. -
Albatross at 05:32 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
Hans @23, Not to get too distracted by the red herring introduced @21 above, but some key points: 1) McLean made his forecast for 2011, not 2010. 2) He also made it for global surface temperatures not any specific location, certainly not for Central England. 3) Regardless, the CET data for 2011 (up to 25 October) are almost +1 C above the 1961-1990 average, and contrary to what Fred says, since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming. 4) As Riccardo and Daniel showed, Fred needs to calculate trends properly. 5) The long-term upward trend continues. So five strikes against that red herring. -
CBDunkerson at 05:27 AM on 27 October 2011The BEST Kind of Skepticism
A couple of issues struck me while reading through the BEST reports; They note that HadCRU results are lower than the other temperature series and express surprise that this hasn't been remarked on before (though, of course, it has been - extensively). They then speculate that perhaps HadCRU averages ocean temperature readings 'over' adjacent land forms (e.g. coasts and islands) and would thus be incorrectly averaging cooler ocean surface temperatures in with land temperatures in these regions. Offhand, I don't know if that is the case, but the usual explanation I've seen for the difference has been that HadCRU doesn't adjust for poor coverage in the Arctic and thus isn't reflecting the full impact of Arctic amplification. Also, they express confidence in their 'global land surface temperature anomaly' reconstruction with fairly narrow uncertainty bands all the way back to 1800... but the first several decades are based on data from only the eastern US and northwestern Europe. Given what we know about the 'hemispheric see-saw' effect with global temperatures (c.f. the hemispheric warming study just released by Svante Björck), AND that Europe was going through the 'little ice age' at the time, I have to wonder whether they might have a significant 'cold' bias in that early data. The Björck study looked at the LIA specifically and found (like many previous studies) that while Europe showed significant cooling around 1800 there was no evidence of anything similar in the Southern hemisphere. -
John Hartz at 05:21 AM on 27 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
What a hoot! -
John Hartz at 04:57 AM on 27 October 2011Amazon Drought: Heat Stress Linked To Mass Tree Die Off In 2005 and 2010
Suggested reading: "2010 Amazon drought released more carbon than India's annual emissions," Mongabay, Oct 9, 2011 To access this informative article, click here. -
Hans5565 at 04:57 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
Very nice Riccardo. BTW, do you know when the last data value occurred? -
Albatross at 04:54 AM on 27 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
Oh for goodness' sake, can we please have no more talk about "tone" and instead talk about the actual scientific content and evidence in the video? The same content and evidence that completely blows Watts and his ilk out of the water. Peter Sinclair did an excellent job on calling out Watts and Inhofe and others who are in denial about AGW. The fact that Anthony Watts et al. now look like fools and hypocrites concerning the robustness of the US and global temperature record is completely their own doing. There is nothing wrong with Peter exposing that and him shining the bright light of truth on that. I bet Anthony Watts is going to try and censor this video, as he has tried to do before. -
Bibliovermis at 04:33 AM on 27 October 2011CO2 has been higher in the past
I am also well versed in computer science and physical modelling; physics, math & computer science in college. I eventually got fed up with being laid off though and went back to school. Now, I am a professional gardener at a large botanic garden. -
Riccardo at 04:30 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
Fred Staples this is the way you look at trends:
Really great, no questions.
-
Fred Staples at 03:55 AM on 27 October 20119 Months After McLean
What a pity Mr McClean did not base his bet on the Central Engand Temperature Record, The longest in the wirld measured by thermometers. When it began in 1659, the average temperature for the year was 8.83 degrees Centigrade. In 2010, 351 years later, after the industrial revolution, de-forestation, a ten-fold increase in population and vast urban growth, at the end of the warmest global decade on record, the average temperature was 8.83 degrees Centigrade.Response:[DB] "The longest in the wirld measured by thermometers"
Which is nice, for Central England. But not of any substantive use when working out global trends.
Apples-n-oranges.
But then again, the CET pretty much agrees with BEST:
[Source]
(Note to self: Don't ever link directly to images in the Archive)
-
Bob Lacatena at 03:10 AM on 27 October 2011CO2 has been higher in the past
55, cjshaker, 59, Dikran, For the record, I am also a "computer scientist" (well, my degree is in computer science, but my profession is really more that of an engineer -- software developer, not research scientist -- as much as I wish that was the direction I'd taken my life). -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:04 AM on 27 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
The "Junior Woodchuck" comment is a sort of reprise from one of Peter's earliest videos on Anthony Watts. Watts up with Watts? Well worth watching. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:28 AM on 27 October 2011SkS Weekly Digest #20
Prof. Pielke also makes a big play on the argumentative nature of the discussion. Well if you refuse to give direct answers to direct questions in a scientific discussion, then IMHO that is both rude and unscientific (science aims to seek the truth, and giving a direct answer to a direct question is a more direct route to the truth than evasion). Had Prof. Pielke been willing to properly address or even engage with the points being made to him, the discussion would have been both more constructive and less argumentative. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:18 AM on 27 October 2011CO2 has been higher in the past
cjshaker wrote: "It appears that Geologic processes bind the CO2 into rock, if I understand the previous answer correctly." Yes, that is correct, on geological timescales. As to your comments on climatologists. Well I am also a computer scientist, and I have worked with climatologists and have always found them to be perfectly happy to discuss the shortcomings of climate models. Gavin Schmidt @ RealClimate is a leading climate modeller and there are several RealClimate posts where he points out areas where there are problems with the models. However, if you go to any scientist with the "attitude" you display in that post, it shouldn't be surprising if you get a hostile response. Is there some way to subscribe to updates to only the questions that I have posted questions or links on? I do not have time to wade through emails of all updates to all questions on this website, but I am interested in updates to the questions in which I have posted." How about doing what I do, which is to remember the articles on which I am participating in the discussions and visit them occasionally to see if anyone has posted anything interesting? To save time, you could bookmark them on your browser. However, if you don't have time to keep track of the discussion, that does suggest that my point regarding posting lots of questions at the same time might have some value. -
Dikran Marsupial at 02:04 AM on 27 October 2011Ice age predicted in the 70s
cjshaker wrote: "It seems that asking questions and then thinking about the replies is a problem?", no, not at all, but after thought about the replies, it is both polite and constructive to post your thoughs regarding the replies, rather than to simply move on. -
Composer99 at 01:26 AM on 27 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
With regards to the tone of Peter Sinclair's video, I suggest that that has long been his style, and it works. Certainly he does a very good job of discussing the science at a level accessible to the layperson, and exposing hypocrisy and misrepresentations on the part of contrarians. Skeptical Science has kept to a much higher standard of tone in its posts, and the comments are kept from getting too out of hand by the comments policy. For my part, I do not think contrarians have any ground on which to stand to make complaints based on 'tone', when one considers remarks such as those made by Monckton, the level of discourse at, say, WattsUpWithThat, or the contrarian commentary that has positively swamped physicist Ethan Siegel's most recent blog post on the subject - despite Ethan also keeping to a higher ground on tone. I would conclude by suggesting that it takes all kinds of responses to climate science skepticism, doubt, denial, and denialism, from high-minded responses such as those by Ethan or Skeptical Science, to more biting, sarcastic rejoinders by the likes of Sinclair. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:09 AM on 27 October 2011Bad, Badder, BEST
9, Dennis, Good! Let them get away from faux-science (they have never, ever discussed actual science, so I won't deign to label what they've ever done as science). They look that much more foolish when they wander off onto shrill political and ideological rants, cartoons and name calling. That we throw it in as a chuckling, can-you-believe-these-people comment does not diminish our position, because we really do have the facts and the science behind us. In the end that is what will win the debate (that, and the fact that the physics doesn't care what anyone says, and it and the temperatures are going to march onward and upward), but there's no reason not to fight the battles by identifying Anthony, Monckton and the others as exactly what they are, in whatever terms are appropriate. Let it bother them. Also let them know that their behavior is not without consequence, both near and long term. -
Bad, Badder, BEST
I would have to say that Peter Sinclair's video is entirely appropriate - in large part satirizing the positions and actions taken by the skeptic/denier crowd, not personal insults. Hence it's not ad hominem in nature. Sinclair is to some extent mocking the positions, then associating them with those maintaining those positions. Compare and contrast: Ad homenim (fallacy): Denigrate the person -> claim that hence their argument is invalid. Judgement call (not a fallacy): Demonstrate that an argument is invalid, if not ridiculous -> judge that the person presenting it is suffering D-K / is being disingenuous / requires fitting of a tinfoil hat. Note the difference! Even if you judge some person to have, for example, poor background in the field based upon some argument they have presented, that is no justification for not fully considering additional arguments - although their history may induce you to start with a more critical eye. --- Quite frankly, those positions of denial are not worthy of any reverence - a bit of mockery for the actions of denial is entirely appropriate. Particularly in this case, where the denialsphere is turning on someone they considered one of their own - because he had the temerity to report what the data indicates.
Prev 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 Next
