Recent Comments

Prev  1450  1451  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  Next

Comments 72851 to 72900:

72851. chriskoz at 14:17 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Good review John, and interesting comments from others. When we are talking about parallels to Inquisition vs Galileo, it's worth mentioning that some deniers are trying to portray it backwards, suggesting that "they are like Galileo persecuted by those 97% of consensus". I'm talking about Astralia's Galileo movement. IMO, it's one of the biggest misnomers attempted by deniers to confuse public opinion. It has been rebutted by sks here. Just look at the timeline in the middle of article to find out when the climate scientists started to formulate current consensus about AGW (1860-1960) and when the opposition to climate science started (late 1980s, and so called "Galileo movement" itself in 2000s) to figure out who is the inquisitor in case of climate change debate today. It's woth pointing out this "Galileo" misnomer widely so that public opinion is less confused.
72852. Rob Honeycutt at 13:42 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       critical mass @ 8... You know, about a year ago I went through and did a brain numbing search of how many times the words "uncertain," "uncertainty" and "uncertainties" occurred in the IPCC AR4. If memory serves me right it was about 3 times per page of the Working Group 1 report.
       Response:

       [DB] Try here:

       http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=441#31068

72853. David Lewis at 11:59 AM on 9 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Hansen, in Earth's Energy Imbalance, says he believes the GISS climate model ER, and "most climate models" "mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean". One piece of his evidence is that the GISS model indicates Earth should be out of energy balance right now by about 1 W/m2, whereas the observations of ocean heat content contradict this. Hansen cites Argo data analysed by von Schuckmann that indicates to him that the actual number for Earth's energy imbalance now is about 0.6 W/m2 which he believes will eventually prove to be 0.75 W/m2 if the solar minimum is averaged out. He argues that if he assumes a model that puts less heat into the ocean it will correspond with observed reality expressed in the global average surface temperature chart as well as current models do, if its climate response time is assumed to be quicker which implies that aerosol forcing is actually -1.6 W/m2 or so. He cites personal communication with Romanou and Marshall (paper in progress) who apparently have found that CFC molecules they were tracing did not move into the deep Southern ocean as quickly as models indicate they should. He's working with several other scientists on improving the way the GISS model handles the ocean although he says work along that line has been ongoing for a long time. That increased negative aerosol forcing he says "is inferred" alarms him enough to put "continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable" in his abstract. It means more than half of the power of the GHG in the atmosphere already has been masked by aerosols, a larger figure for the "Faustian bargain" he's been talking about for some time, than he's said he's got solid evidence for before. He points to a decline in total GHG growth rate since the peak rates of the 1980s which is due to the Montreal Protocol limits on CFCs, the solar minimum, and residual effects of Mt Pinatubo as explanations for why the warmest decade wasn't warmer. It appears to me Hansen is contradicting Trenberth et al with this. I.e. Meehl (2011) is a modelling study, whereas Hansen is asserting that taking a model result that says something like Trenberth's missing energy is being sent into the ocean is likely wrong, if he is right that the models send too much heat into the ocean in a systematic error. He says his assumed model that has the quicker climate response gives a calculated energy imbalance in line with observations hence there is likely no missing energy. Do you have any thoughts. I'm poring over Hansen's paper trying to understand what he's saying.
72854. dhogaza at 11:26 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Riccardo: "You americans have a different cultural and political background than us europeans. You tend to be kind of allergic to any Government intervention." Not true when our country's entire history is considered. Back in the 30s, when much of Europe was embracing fascism, the US was largely embracing a kind of socialism from above in the form of FDR's New Deal. Only about 1/3 of the program he and his allies in Congress passed into law survived the day's conservative Supreme Court, but that 1/3 transformed government's role in our society (to the better, IMO). Imagine if the other 2/3 of his program had become law ... the US would've had national health care in the 1930s. The Right has, ever since, been trying to roll back the clock to the days of Hoover, before FDR, and they've succeeded to a large degree. There have been many other instances of government intervention - the US was extremely aggressive 40 years ago in passing clear air and water legislation, an endangered species act, banned DDT, NEPA, the NFMA, and a bunch of other stuff you've never heard of that amounted to a vast intervention on how natural resource extraction is done in this country. Despite all our bitching, our environmental laws have historically bee nmuch stronger here than in most of, if not all of, Europe. The pendulum has swung against us in the national political arena, but poll after poll shows strong support for environmental protection and conservation. Here's a curve ball for you: consider that one of the reasons the disinformation campaign has been so highly funded and orchestrated in the US compared to Europe, with such aggressive efforts to smear and discourage scientists, is because public support for accepting science on environmental and conservation issues has always been quite strong here. And the laws that have been adopted as a result have historically been very strong (check out the Endangered Species Act, passed 40 years ago, which led to virtually the end of the harvesting of old growth forests in Oregon in the 1990s, a result supported by about 70% of oregonians today, up from about 50% during the midst of the legal battle). They've had to undermine the public's confidence in the science in order to get a large proportion of the public to ignore the science and its implications, and therefore provide political cover for the scuttling of any efforts to take action.
72855. DSL at 10:58 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       tblakeslee, who is in power? Clearly, in the U.S., climate scientists (for that matter, scientists in most disciplines) are not in a position of power, where "power" means the ongoing management of action and belief. Wide-reaching mass media entities enjoy relatively massive power. How many people in the world have the time, training, energy, resources, and/or motivation to undertake a robust understanding of climate science? And how many of those who do enjoy those conditions approach the science with an already-formed thesis (based on someone else's rhetoric)? You, tblakeslee, have demonstrated an unwillingness (not total, thank goodness) to tell anyone why you think CO2 is not a major contributor to warming. Why? What was it in the formation of your opinion that put you in the position you're in right now regarding climate science? What led you to reject the dominant theory? It couldn't have been your own analysis of the research, because you could then bring forth well-reasoned and well-supported arguments against the foundational research of the theory of AGW. Some portion of your opinion must have been provided for you. It's nothing to be ashamed of; that's the situation in which 99% of the population finds themselves. I should have said, though, that it's nothing to be ashamed of unless one has failed to look critically at the source of the opinion. That is another variable to consider, another reason to stay away from absolutes.
72856. Dave123 at 10:48 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Bravo Sphaerica!
72857. Daniel Bailey at 09:38 AM on 9 October 2011
       Changes in Arctic Sea Ice: Young and thin instead of old and bulky
       Thanks for posting this, John; I found this discussion of the marginal ice zones and algal blooms most interesting.
72858. scaddenp at 07:32 AM on 9 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       " If rhetoric like that were a problem, it would be trumpeted all the time at sites like what's up. " Try non-USA sites (like our very own Hot-topic) and you will find that rhetoric among commentators. I havent seen much overtly socialist advocacy on American media that I visit, but I think it hidden in veiled commentary.
72859. Bob Lacatena at 06:26 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       21, tblakeslee, Oh, you mean like... Cuccinelli on Mann? Or the Interior Department's Office of the Inspector General and Monnett? Or all of the various inquiries on Jones and the UEA CRU? You mean inquisitions like those, by the people in power (i.e. the wealthy, monied and connected interests) against scientists simply because they didn't like the conclusions the science reached? Yes, your point is well made. Thank you.
72860. tblakeslee at 06:16 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Inquisitions are done by the people in power, not by the underdogs. I think you have it backwards.
72861. Riccardo at 05:59 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       John Hartz #17 I know you're being provocative, it's not about being intelligent. You americans have a different cultural and political background than us europeans. You tend to be kind of allergic to any Government intervention. As anything, there are two sides of the coin and now you really need to "break on through to the other side". As someone (Joe Romm?) recently said, Rick Perry is the best competitive advantage europeans have. If you do not change something you'll be left behind. Let me conclude with europeans' other side of the coin: "Only one in five said they took personal responsibility, with more people saying it was the responsibility of national governments, EU authorities and businesses."
72862. Riccardo at 05:53 AM on 9 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       See, tblakeslee, there's something that makes me (and probably others) stop paying attention and responding: "The map I posted before shows how this pattern is not unusual." (emph. mine) Either you mean that this pattern is typical under global warming, which is true, or your claim is meaningless.
72863. Tristan at 05:51 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       John: I don't see it mentioned much, probably because it's a pretty dark observation, but the current incidence rate of poverty in the world may well be what saves everyone from the more extreme effects of climate change in the future. There's an extraordinary little PC game (developed with the aid of various environmental bodies) called 'Fate of the World'. If you reduce poverty too quickly, baseload energy demand skyrockets and you get a catastrophic GFC. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry at the poverty/AGW relationship.
72864. tblakeslee at 05:43 AM on 9 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       No, but I think issuing a press release that it was the hottest month shows how unsound the global average is for decision making. The map I posted before shows how this pattern is not unusual. Global warming is really arctic warming.
       Response:

       [DB] Alright, no more off-topic comments (and this applies to everyone).  If anyone wishes to pursue any of this further, please take it to the appropriate thread.  This thread is about CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate.

       tblakeslee, part and parcel of adherence to the Comments Policy of this website is staying on-topic to the OP of the thread you are posting on. Nearly 5,000 other threads exist here at SkS on virtually anything related to climate science.  Please use the Search function to find the most appropriate thread for comments not pertaining to this thread.
       

72865. r.pauli at 05:42 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       As I read of anti-science tactics, I can't decide whether our species is mostly stupid or just immoral. The denialist strategy has always been to block any constraints to carbon commerce. To increase guilt-free fossil fuel consumption, their tactic has been to plant doubt and denial -- hence prolong debate and confusion. Then the momentum and sloth of any generation takes over: "It cannot possibly be MY USE of carbon that causes the problem" which soon becomes "Well it is too late for me to change now" Carbon energy capitalism is based on short term decisions. The battle for a long-term, rational public policy is lost, and the marketplace has conquered the high carbon consumer... but the future will reveal this to be an un-intentional Pyrrhic victory.
72866. Tristan at 05:38 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       'Thoughtful skepticism' might have been defensible in the 90s.
72867. John Hartz at 05:09 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Are Europeans inherently more intelligent than Americans? “The Eurobarometer poll suggests that the majority of the public in the European Union consider global warming to be one of the world's most serious problems, with one-fifth saying it is the single most serious problem. Overall, respondents said climate change was the second most serious issue facing the world, after poverty.” Source: “Europeans fear climate change more than financial turmoil, poll shows” Guardian (UK), Oct 7, 2011 To access this important article, click here.
72868. Philippe Chantreau at 04:20 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       "damned if you do, and damned if you don't." Exactly. The dishonesty of the science's critics is blatant and manifests through all sorts of devious ways. Look at Mann and the "non statistically significant warming" journalistic trap. An endless stream of this junk flows through the so-called skeptic outlets. Seriously, they even had to create a pseudo-journal devoted to giving an appearance of serious to "papers" so miserable they could never make it in the real litterature, unless they use underhanded ways that have been exposed recently on this site. And no matter how extreme or ludicrous, as in Monckton's tilted graphs or Beck's idiotic nonsense, there is a large crowd of people so eager to believe that they will swallow the all thing, hook, line and sinker.
72869. Dave123 at 04:01 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       And it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Deniers also magnify any statement (including IPPC statements) about uncertainty into "we don't really know anything about anything". The honest question of how much certainty do you need is subject to constantly moving goalposts. My thought has been the following for I blush to say over 30 years- NOW while we have an infrastructure and fossil fuels and the ability to execute large scale, global scale capital projects is when we should be taking steps. Waiting till after peak oil, till when we are pressed against it is a recipe for magnified disaster.
72870. Riccardo at 03:17 AM on 9 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       tblakeslee do you want to build a climate theory on the anomaly of one single month? Given that you changed the graph to better meet your needs, I'd still call it cherry picking or trolling. As for why the arctic is warming more, look for "polar amplification".
72871. Tom Curtis at 03:13 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Critical Mass @8, anyone who has read any of the IPCC reports know that its comments are all hedged about with explicit acknowledgments of uncertainties and lack of knowledge, where ever appropriate. Despite this, we are repeatedly told that the reason the case for AGW is not being accepted is because of lack of acknowledgement of uncertainties. Bullshit! The reason the case for AGW is not being accepted is because a denialist propaganda machine is trying to spread doubt and lies as fast as they can. You have obviously decided to enlist yourself in that role - but next time you try spreading such blatant falsehood, bear in mind that a high proportion of commentors here have actually read the various IPCC assessment reports and know that what you are saying is blatantly false. No doubt this comment will fall foul of the comments policy, but sometimes (-snip-) are so blatant they need to be called for what they are!
       Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

72872. Composer99 at 02:45 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       critical mass: Climate scientists' errors are usually handled within the context of peer-reviewed journals, as are indeed all other research scientists. Perhaps you could name a few thoughtful skeptics whom you feel are unfairly pilloried? Such claims, when devoid of content, are usually given an unflattering description. Also, if you read through the many articles on this site, as well as other excellent resources such as RealClimate, you will find that there is an enormous consilience of empirically-derived evidence demonstrating the existence, magnitude, and seriousness of global warming. Uncertainties remain in some details, yes, but as a species we now have more than enough information on the phenomenon to insist that action be undertaken.
       Moderator Response:

       unclosed tag fixed

       (DB) Thanks for indirectly teaching me a new word: tergiversate.

72873. tblakeslee at 02:35 AM on 9 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       I asked a question because I am trying to find the truth. It appears that global warming is primarily an effect in the arctic area. Planetary averages simply mask the causes. CO2 is uniformly spread over the planet while magnetic fields are much stronger near the poles and of opposite polarity in the two hemispheres. In post 107 I posted some graphs showing excellent correlation of temperature anomalies with solar activity in the arctic. The responses rejected it with nitpics about the CO2 plot not being logarithmic. (Since there was only a 27% increase in CO2 the plot would have been virtually identical.) Denial makes it very hard to look at data that conflicts your beliefs but I suggest you look again with an open mind. The very idea that a world maximum temperature was reached in February 2010 is based on the averaging of world temperatures which was distorted by the very high numbers in the arctic. Here is a map of temperatures in that month: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/0210.jpg?w=500&h=339 If we are going to find the cause we must focus on the problem itself and not destroy data by averaging out most of the effects.
       Moderator Response: (DB) Actually, the truth is global warming is but one aspect of a much larger issue: climate change.
72874. Mal Adapted at 02:16 AM on 9 October 2011
       There is no consensus
       I posted this on RealClimate a few days ago: "Los Alamos National Laboratory is hosting the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change Oct. 31 thru Nov. 4. A lot of good science has come out of LANL, but the conference program is dismaying. I’m not familiar with many of the names on it, but I do know a few of them, e.g. Lindzen, Singer and Monckton! What can the conference organizers be thinking?" In response, Gavin pointed out that one of the organizers is Petr Chylek, who leads a Remote Sensing team at LANL. It appears Chylek is attempting to bolster the scientific credibility of AGW denial, as he has done this kind of thing before. His strategy may backfire, by diminishing LANL's reputation for producing high-quality science.
72875. John Hartz at 02:12 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       The crux of the problem? ‘There's no excuse for the sort of half-fictions and outright lies that too often make up the climate-change-denial machine, but it's human psychology — as much as politics — that's preventing us from dealing with one of the greatest threats the species faces. The most powerful denial machine of all may be the one inside our heads.” Source: “Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?” Time, Oct 4, 2011 To access this insightful article, click here.
72876. Riccardo at 01:36 AM on 9 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       So, in tblakeslee's opinion, global warming is not global because a fraction of the earth (ocean to be precise) arounf 60° S is not warming. Talk of cherry picking! Not breaking news, though, GISS shows a similar plot here.
72877. Paul D at 01:35 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Agreed Riccardo. Critical mass... Actually business usually want two things. A combination of stable regulatory environment and an equal playing field. Within those parameters most businesses are happy. Many businesses actively campaign for legislation and regulation, including legislation on CO2 emissions. Why is this? Well most want to do business and aren't interested in political ideology.
72878. Mal Adapted at 01:32 AM on 9 October 2011
       Clouds Over Peer Review
       

       [DB] Please refrain from the usage of all-caps. Thanks!

       You can achieve the same effect with italics, as shown here.
72879. Riccardo at 01:23 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       I don't think the point is being always right or wrong. Indeed, even Galileo has been wrong several times.
72880. tblakeslee at 01:23 AM on 9 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       Here is a map of temperature trends from satellite data that shows that global warming is not really global but rather concentrated in the arctic region. Note the graph on the right shows a slight cooling in the southern polar region: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tmt Much more info at: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm The influence of the sun's magnetic field is clearly visible in these regions by the northern lights aurora displays. Can someone tell me the explanation for this focus on the north polar regions under the theory that CO2 is the primary cause?
       Response:

       [DB] Besides the obvious cherry-picking, using information derived from a known disinformationist website (appinsys) tremendously undermines your credibility here.

72881. critical mass at 01:16 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       The assumption in John Cook's piece is that climate scientists can do no wrong and all fault lies with the skeptics. Hence the Galileo analogy. In such polemics the thoughtful skeptic gets labelled and pilloried with the likes of ignorant populist creations like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry. Big business can always make money out of any regulatory regime - in fact the various ETS and Carbon Credit schemes are a potential playground for the spivs who brought us the GFC to trade in a whole new world of derivatives. Business is only interested in getting there first. The case for AGW would be stronger if the proponents were more receptive to telling the public about the range of uncertainties and deficiencies of knowledge which accompany the science.
       Response:

       [DB] "thoughtful skeptic gets labelled and pilloried with the likes of ignorant populist creations like Sarah Palin and Rick Perry"

       The "thoughtful skeptic" seems to be a truly rare creature then.  If you have actual examples of such happening by any here please give a link to them.

       Unsubstantiated allegations of impropriety struck out.  You must of missed those many thousands of instances of uncertainties being detailed in every chapter & verse of the various iterations of the IPCC.

       For example, in the IPCC AR4, WG1, the words, "uncertain," "uncertainty" or "uncertainties" occur 1,372 times.

72882. Alexandre at 00:45 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Hey, that small group includes a bunch of people who are not scientists. How about sorting them into different categories in the liked page?
       Moderator Response: fixed link
72883. tblakeslee at 00:29 AM on 9 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       Nice theory but here are a couple of quotes that disagree: "Jet contrails differ from ship tracks by forming where water vapour traces in the air are able to condense on fine particles of soot ejected from engines after the combustion of kerosene." http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/14/ship-trails-stop-rainfall-in-its-tracks/ also here is a quote from a research paper on jet airplane contrails: ". Soot controls ice formation in contrails for high number emission indices including the range of current global fleet values. A fivefold reduction of soot emissions from average levels of 5 × 1014 − 1015 (kg-fuel)−1 approximately halves the initial contrail visible optical depth. " http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036649.shtml
       Response:

       [DB] Please take the discussion of contrails to a more appropriate thread, like CO2 is not the only driver of climate.

72884. Ger at 18:23 PM on 8 October 2011
       True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
       First step to take is an extraction tax at the source. Second step emission pricing as a kind of regulating mechanism in that area. SO2 and such do have effects in the close proximity of the emitter and not that much worldwide. A lot of fossil carbon ends up in products being burned after their lifetime but are really not taxed in the country of first use. Take second hand cars and other goodies being exported for re-use and such. Taxing of biomass, when the biomass is grown sustainable will work out as non-taxable. Monitoring sustainability/biodiversity can be paid out of the emission pricing for those plants so conversion techniques have an advantage to be carbon-negative e.g. producing bio char and materials do be used as fertilizers not to be exported out of the region of production.
72885. OUTSIDE OBSERVER at 17:48 PM on 8 October 2011
       True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
       This is not, of course, entirely about the greenhouse effect, but it adds some justification to government efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels in general and especially coal. Nothing new about estimating the externalities of coal combustion - I recall one Professor B. Cohen writing about the subject in Scientific American around 1975 . In those days, there was little public interest in the greenhouse effect. If I recall, Cohen's articles mentioned figures of 25 deaths per year per power station, not to mention thousands of cases of lung disease. (I let others verify the accuracy of these quotes)Needless to say, identifying the victims is not so simple. There is no doubt that scientists have a harder job than statistical economists. As well as acid rain, do not overlook the effects of toxic metals, including mercury, arsenic and barium. Oh, and one more nasty - uranium. Thousands of tonnes of uranium and a little radium have been emitted into the environment over the years from coal power stations. Considering the public and political hysteria (e.g. in Germany) in relation to the Fukushima nuclear power station disaster, it is remarkable that even the informed public has been so tolerant (and skeptical) for so long over these radioactive emissions from coal thermal plants.
72886. trunkmonkey at 15:44 PM on 8 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       How long ago was it that skeptics were Gallileo? Too many inquisitions, too little science.
72887. Philippe Chantreau at 14:47 PM on 8 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       I don't remember where that fantasy hypothesis about contrails came from. Contrails are a fairly well investigated and well understood phenomenon and, as a long time pilot and flight instructor, I am yet to read about any link between them and cosmic rays (?!?). Any scientific reference discussing this would be welcome. The burning of kerosene in an airplane's engine yields CO2 and H2O, i.e. water vapor. Contrails form because the addition of water vapor pushes the air past its saturation point. The most important factor, indeed the only factor of demonstrated importance in the formation of contrails, is the relative humidity at the altitude where the gases are released. In very dry air, contrails do not form at all, or dissipate shortly after their formation. Interestingly, aiplanes can also leave distrails, in which the increased temperature has the effect of decreasing relative humidity and returning water to the gaseous state. And they do this even when there is already plenty of CCN available, since clouds formed in the first place. Contrails are somewhat different from the condensation that can be seen forming in the cores of vortices generated by airfoils. They are due to a locally decreased temperature (pulling the air to its dew point) caused by a decrease in pressure due to the high angle of attack of the airfoil. These can be seen when airplanes fly slow in air that is very humid. High performance airplanes pulling high G maneuvers will sometimes create fog in the resulting area of low pressure, most often near the upper surface of the wing. Supersonic airplanes will create a cloud of fog at the boundary of the shock wave when passing the sound barrier, once again because of pressure drop. Interestingly, there is another fruitcake variety of conspiracy theory, postulating that contrails are some sort of "gubmint chemical spraying operation." It got way more attention than it deserved, as is usually the case with that kind of crackpottery.
72888. Bob Lacatena at 14:47 PM on 8 October 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       118, Dikran,

       ...but it does show in hindsight that it has warmed since 1998.

       It also shows that his choice of 3rd order polynomial fit doesn't fit, unless that brief foray into La Nina land continues non-stop for about a half a decade.
72889. Bob Lacatena at 14:29 PM on 8 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       Lloyd, Yes, absolutely, the American denial machine is it, and it is founded on the right. But you have the source wrong. It's founded, I'm pretty sure, almost entirely on the recent trend towards equating wealth with liberty, prosperity, and happiness, and a 100% free, unregulated market as the only path towards wealth. Anything, from taxes to regulations, that interferes with the free market is interpreted to be a harbinger of doom. Climate change implies the need for regulation, which the American right has been programmed to believe will destroy the economy, which will cost jobs, which will hurt everyone, even if you're not a member of the 1% of the population that qualifies as wealthy. Corporations must be free to fire employees, hold wages down, drill for oil where ever they find it, build coal plants, and to compete entirely without interference from the government. Somehow, though, billions a year in subsidies and tax breaks for already immensely profitable fossil fuel companies is okay.
72890. KR at 12:28 PM on 8 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       tblakeslee - "If it gets hotter you win." No, if it gets hotter, we all lose. This isn't a contest, tblakeslee, it's life, it's reality. Not a rhetorical contest, not a "who's hypothesis is bigger" comparison. Unfortunately, it gets hotter is what we can expect if you actually look at the data.
72891. Lloyd Flack at 12:11 PM on 8 October 2011
       Understanding climate denial
       DSL, Sphaerica, I know that Australia seems to have the next worst denialist machine or possibly being an Australian it is particularly visible to me. Even so it is considerably weaker than the corresponding American movement. Also it seems to me to take its cues from the American denialists. Granted this is partially numbers. What I was trying to get at is that denialism's main home seems to be in the American right, not so much the right in other countries. And that perhaps it is in interaction between right wing ideology and values that are more influential in the whole of the US than they are in other countries. Perhaps it is the downside of American anti-authoritarianism and egalitarianism.
72892. tblakeslee at 11:39 AM on 8 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       Wow! That's a lot of words you are putting in my mouth. I never said that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming but I have consistently been saying the same thing: The sun's magnetic field influences cloud formation and clouds affect temperature more than CO2. Cosmic rays are affected by the sun's field. Contrails and ships trails show that conditions exist for cloud formation with a little help from a nucleus or ion. You will soon see who is right when the effect of the change in sun activity shows itself even more dramatically with cooling climate. If it gets hotter you win.
       Moderator Response: [DB] All unsupported assertions. You have been repeatedly shown the errors of your ways yet you continue. That is your choice. As is the choice of all here to disregard those selfsame unsupported assertions in favor of science and physics.
72893. nigelj at 09:36 AM on 8 October 2011
       Clouds Over Peer Review
       It seems a lot of the published research by the Sceptics floats there own alternative hypothesis. Im not seeing much that actually tries to specifically refute mainstream published work. One assumes they simply cant. I admire Lindzen, but I dont think its possible to take Spencer seriously, not given the comments in item 4 above.
72894. pielkesr at 07:40 AM on 8 October 2011
       Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
       SkS - Here are answers to several of your questions: 1. Regarding "the global energy imbalance must be able to explain the change in surface temperature. There are also some good paleoclimate analogues to the current climate, like during the Pliocene and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).' I disagree. These events occurred with vastly different land distribution, ocean current etc. 2. Regarding "However, Santer et al. concluded that a minimum of 17 years is necessary to identify human effects in the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), so why look at the 13-year trend? Moreover, as Pielke notes, there was a very strong El Niño in 1998, and TLT data is very sensitive to changes in ENSO. We wonder, will Dr. Pielke will acknowledge that 1998 was a poorly-chosen start date for this analysis?" I did not start in 1998 because it was the warmest in the record. I started after that when the MSU LT became ~flat. We can wait 4 more years to see if the LT starts to warm. Then lets revisit. :-) It certainly has to warm up quickly if Santer's signal will be seen. 3. Regarding "will Dr. Pielke agree that his previous assessment of zero Joules accumulated during this period was incorrect, and that the timeframe (since 2003) and depth (700 meters) is insufficient for a suitable assessment of the climatological trend? I agree it is positive from http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ but relatively small. In my Waterloo talk, I used a value of 1/4 of the rate in the early decade. I would, however, like to also convert this to the heating rate in Watts per meter squared and assess how close it is to Jim Hansen's estimate from GISS of o.6 Watts per meter squared [see http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf]. This is a short time period (~7 years). Nonetheless, I hope you will support me in recommending the adoption of this metric as a primary assessment tool to monitor global warming.
72895. Composer99 at 07:20 AM on 8 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       Yes, I have seen comment #2. There was a subsequent reply indicating that the NRT report under discussion was part of a larger series. In addition, I now see that the rest of the NRT reports are linked to in the OP. So is your objection that the OP is still cherry-picking? I expect this objection has been addressed with the additional links.
72896. Jonathon at 05:39 AM on 8 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       Composer99, See post #2.
72897. Composer99 at 05:19 AM on 8 October 2011
       Climate Change Could be Expensive for Canada
       It would be nice if there was a point to all this, Jonathon. Is your point that Canadians in general or Ontarians in specific ought to advocate against taking action to mitigate (or even reverse) CO2 emissions in order to save a few dollars on heating (on account of savings in heating potentially outweighing increases in cooling)? Because if it isn't, then I put it to you that you are wasting your time arguing it and everyone else's time reading your posts.
72898. John Hartz at 05:11 AM on 8 October 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent
       Suggested reading: “Young and Thin Instead of Old and Bulky: Researchers Report On Changes in Arctic Sea Ice After Return of Research Vessel Polarstern” ScienceDaily, Oct 6, 2011 To access this article, click here
72899. John Hartz at 05:10 AM on 8 October 2011
       Graphics for Sea Ice Minimum 2011
       Suggested reading: “Young and Thin Instead of Old and Bulky: Researchers Report On Changes in Arctic Sea Ice After Return of Research Vessel Polarstern” ScienceDaily, Oct 6, 2011 To access this article, click here
72900. Dikran Marsupial at 05:10 AM on 8 October 2011
       It hasn't warmed since 1998
       From Roy Spencers blog, here are the most recent UAH lower trophosperic temperatures Spencer describes the 3rd order polynomial fit to the data as being "for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.". It may not have any predictive value, but it does show in hindsight that it has warmed since 1998. Many thanks for debunking this one for us Roy! ;o)

Prev  1450  1451  1452  1453  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  Next