Recent Comments

Prev  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  Next

Comments 73051 to 73100:

73051. David Lewis at 03:56 AM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       I would hope that everyone understands that scientists often find they disagree on how to interpret data and that their disagreements are often resolved over time. I described what I understood of Hansen's ideas in order to ask if it appears to others that Hansen's idea that most models respond to forcing too slowly because they send too much heat into the deep ocean contradicts this NCAR research. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate (in his reply to comment #3 under his post Global Warming and Ocean Heat Content) appears to have answered a question similar to mine by saying there is no contradiction. Here is the question posed at RealClimate: "[regarding “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications”] In that paper, especially in sections 6 & 7, it appears – to me anyway – that James Hansen and his colleagues have given up on the search for the so-called “missing heat” in the deep ocean and have instead concluded it must have been radiated away as a result of the negative anthropogenic aerosol forcing. I take this as suggesting that Hansen has parted company with Kevin Trenberth and others and has conceded that the IPCC models are flawed – flawed in their “climate response functions”. Do you know if the model used by Meehl suffers the same problem with the “climate response function” that Hansen discusses? Do you have any other comments on the Hansen et al. paper?" [Response by Gavin Schmidt]: I don't see any contradiction. Meehl et al are looking at a generic behaviour which will exist in all models, while Hansen is thinking about the specific forcings and response for the last decade. Different issues. - gavin Yet in Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications Hansen republished Trenberth's "Global Net Energy Budget" diagram from Trenberth's "Perspectives" piece, which was originally published in Science, i.e. this one And Hansen says this about it: "the slowdown of ocean heat uptake, together with satellite radiation budget observations, led to a perception that Earth's energy budget is not closed (Trenberth 2009, Trenberth and Fasullo 2010), as summarized in Fig. 19A. However, our calculated energy imbalance is consistent with observations (Fig 19b), implying there is no missing energy in recent years." Which sounds like he is making sure everyone knows he is contradicting Trenberth and the NCAR research as described in this "The Deep Ocean Warms when Global Surface Temperatures Stall" Skeptical Science post. When describing the NCAR work it seems there must at least be a mention that a scientific group with the stature of Jim Hansen's appears to completely disagree. Or, is Gavin Schmidt correct that Hansen is not contradicting NCAR? Or, is it the case that Hansen is losing scientific credibility in the minds of the writers here at Skeptical Science?
73052. abhi541 at 03:45 AM on 10 October 2011
       It's methane
       1. Authors of super-freakonomics have said that eating kangaroo meat as opposed to a ham-burger is good for climate as methane is a greater threat! Is that scientifically correct? 2. Same book mentions that methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gas. If CO2 level is 200 times CH4 how does it contribute 28% warming than CO2? (I am assuming law of proportions to hold. Correct if wrong) 3. Will emitting sulpher in atmosphere help cooling the planet? After what altitude exactly does sulpher cease being trouble (acid rain etc..) Thanks!
73053. John Hartz at 03:32 AM on 10 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       The American public in general, and conservatives in particular, are constantly bombarded by a stream of propaganda about both the validity of the science of climate change and the integrity of climate scientists A case in point is “The phony ‘consensus’ on climate change”, an editorial by the Daily Herald of Utah Valley posted on Oct 9, 2011. This editorial is a veritable Gish Gallop of climate denial memes. Because similar statements have recently been popping up all over the place on conservative media outlets, it is safe to conclude that one of the conservative think tanks generated and distributed a shell statement far and wide. As my fellow SkS author, Neal J King is wont to say, “We’re in a propaganda war!”
73054. Dikran Marsupial at 03:21 AM on 10 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       tblakesee The first post of yours I can find is this one, which shows you arrived here with an "attitude" and were not seeking try out your ideas. That post includes a dig at the IPCC (that they were "betting" on CO2, rather than having arived at ther position by rational science, a dig at the reviewers of Kikrby's paper suggesting that they had forced him to write stuff (unsubstantiated, and that is the reviewers job you know!). It also contains references to theories long debunked (Landscheidt - no statistical validity). I suggest that if you really want to test out some ideas, then you need to change the style of your posts, by (a) having some humility and (b) asking questions rather than making (largely unsupported) statements. I for one am happy to discuss Landscheidt and Svensmarks theories with you, but only as part of a calm rational dialogue. The ball is in your court.
73055. tblakeslee at 02:21 AM on 10 October 2011
       CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
       After years of writing editorials urging action to stop global warming (www.clrlight.org) I realized that it was possible that the IPCC had made a mistake. Before writing about my realization, I decided to discuss my ideas on this blog to hear the other side of the argument. The responses I received were mostly "straw man" arguments about mistatements of my position and ad homium attacks on my sources. It appears that this blog is not about discussion to discover the truth but rather about promoting a dogma. I was hoping you would change my mind but instead you have shown that this is a religion and you are defending the faith. Very disappointing!
       Response:

       [DB] "I realized that it was possible that the IPCC had made a mistake."

       Certainly "possible", but do not conflate "possible" with "probable".  In a many-thousands-of-pages document, errors can creep in.  Typo's and some minor errata in WG2 and WG3, yes.  But the core of the science of climate change found in WG1 is unchanged and really not scientifically contested.  A long, but good, read.  I recommend it.

       "The responses I received were mostly "straw man" arguments about mistatements of my position and ad homium attacks on my sources."

       Please give examples to them.  Failing that, this is an unsupported and unsubstantiated attack on the other participants here and you will need to withdraw that attack with the requisite words of apology.

       "It appears that this blog is not about discussion to discover the truth but rather about promoting a dogma."

       IBID.

       "I was hoping you would change my mind but instead you have shown that this is a religion and you are defending the faith."

       Since you have no scientific position and basis to rely upon you fall back upon the usual rhetoric of those with a paucity of factual substance for their platform and the prosecution of their agenda.  Very disappointing and unoriginal.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts (yes, you are still off-topic). We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

73056. Jonathon at 00:28 AM on 10 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       Michael, Your last statement is obvious. Whether the "missing heat" has been radiated back to space or is being stored in the deep oceans has major implications. In the former, there is no buildup of heat, but in the latter, heat is being stored in the ocean which will eventually migrate to the surface. The difference is huge for future temperature changes. Of course, it could be a combination of the two, or other explanations could play a larger role.
73057. michael sweet at 23:38 PM on 9 October 2011
       The Deep Ocean Warms When Global Surface Temperatures Stall
       David, Hansen and Trenberth have different explainations for the source of the "missing heat". Hansen posits that the heat has been reflected into space by aerosols and Trenberth that it is in the deep oceans. They will resolve this issue as scientists do: they are collecting data to see who is right. Several papers have come out supporting each side, so it is too early for the rest of us to tell who will be correct. In the end both may be right for part of the energy. It takes years (or decades) for scientists to collect data like this so do not expect the issue to be resolved tomorrow. Both agree that no matter which explaination is correct it means we need to do more to reduce AGW.
73058. nautilus_mr at 23:18 PM on 9 October 2011
       Clouds Over Peer Review
       Scrap that last -found it. On the site I see that Spencer co-authored this paper at the Cornwall Alliance. A quick skim suggests it is similar to his other offerings.
73059. nautilus_mr at 23:05 PM on 9 October 2011
       Clouds Over Peer Review
       re comment #4, Dave123 Your point about Spencer being a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance declaration is very interesting -and would explain a few things about powerful non-scientific motivations for the way he goes about science. But... I've just had a look at their site and can't find any reference to him. Can you please post how you made the connection between Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance?
73060. Lloyd Flack at 22:28 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Glenn Tamblyn, I agree with most of what you say. I would think of some of it in a slightly different way. I think the people who you described as values centered are making the mistake of dealing with the universe the same way that they deal with people. Or perhaps it might be better to say that they want to deal with the universe in a way that allows them them to interact with people in their preferred manner. Dealing with people is a matter of values after all. And it is just as much a mistake to bring the mindset of physics into personal interactions. What you describe as values centered people refuse to see that physics puts constraints on the degree to which thay can act on their values. And some people find the idea of the universe forcing them to only partially act on their values to be horrible. They rebel against the idea that compromise on moral issues is obligatory.
73061. Riccardo at 19:31 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       dhogaza you're right but that's one side of the coin, you americans tend to unite and show a very strong will when you feel threatened. Environmental protection fits because it's a kind of threat to your country, not because it's a value by itself, the right thing to do anyway. The New Deal was put in place because you needed to bring the country out of the worst recession ever; health care at the time was economically profitable, again not a value by itself. And that may be ok, that's what made your country great. In contrast, look at what i said in my previous comment about we europeans. While you feel personally involved and committed, we tend to delegate, one thing that greatly limits our actions. But the other side of the coin is that when it comes to global problems, when you have to share the responsibility and the burden of its solution, you seem to loose the directions. You try to find where your interest lies but the problem is so big and complicated that it's not at all easy to spot it. In this situation, instead of being open to the outside world, you close the door. This is your weakness, your Achilles' heel. There's one thing i don't understand. The direction the world is taking is pretty clear today and your best interest should be to get involved, help determine the best way to go and lead. But for some reason the door is still closed. These are my two cents, not the results of an accurate sociological analisys but the impressions of an informed european citizen who happened to live in the US for a short while.
73062. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:01 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       RPauli "As I read of anti-science tactics, I can't decide whether our species is mostly stupid or just immoral" My take is that most of it is a sort of 'stupid' rather than immoral. Not in the literal sense of unintelligent, but a multitude of psychological blindnesses. Whether your world-view, your sense of meaning and meaningfullness, your notions of whether cause-and-effect progresses from philosophical and value considerations first or considerations of the physics of the world around you first. Remember George the Younger and Faith Based Realities. To that psychology, the physical world is 'required' to fit into other 'value' based perspectives. In the simplest terms, the world MUST be a place where the physical conforms to my psychological imperatives. It must be because the alternative is psychologically appaling. These aren't immoral people (mostly). My sense of what immorality is requires an awareness of the immoral act/view but a willingness to engage in it anyway. They are our fellow human beings who are bringing a sense of decency and integrity to this question in accord with how their minds work. Its just that their pattern of psychological behaviour is out of synch with the reality of how the physical world works. Someone with this psychology could/would see a disagreement between them and your or my view as a disagreement on values or ideology, rather than a disagreement on physics. Fundamentally this is a psychological make-up that puts value systems ahead of physics. It is profoundly a values driven mode of thought. And with values so overwhelmingly important in their perception of reality, that reality IS values, they struggle to allow physical science type reasoning to have pre-eminence over this. If it was just my mindset vs theirs, it would be a moot point. Each to their own. But there is one person's viewpoint that trumps everyone elses. To anthropomorphise a bit, Mother Natures view over-rules everyone else. You might have a values based psychology. Fine, but if you fail to work within her physics based thinking, then She will do bad shit unto you. But this other psychological makeup doesn't get this, is hostile to that form of thinking because it is deeply antithetical to THEIR mode of perception, and will resist action based on this, right up to the point where Mother Nature kicks them in the 'family jewels' At which point they may not understand why this has happened to them and may even look for scapegoats to explain it. Because the alternative is the need to confront the basic fact that life cannot be judged as a values driven reality but rather a physics driven reality. And this is a profound psychological trauma. Few people can handle this. We who may have a more physics derived identity are the lucky ones. Unless of course those with a values derived identity hold sway, in which case our physics derived identity is deeply challenged. And unfortunately we know that Mother Nature is waiting in the wings to over-rule everyone else. We no the 'Umpire' is on our side. But we also know that if the other psychological mode holds sway, the Umpires Ruling wil hurt all of us. So the key challenge. To get the 'values derived' people to grasp the idea that their perception of the world is disconnected from reality. And we will pay a terrible price because of it. But from their psychological stand-point, abandoning their values based perspective looks like just as profound a price. They see an abandonment of their psychological reference point as a spiritual death. We see a failure to abandon it as a spiritual AND physical death. How to bridge the psychological divide is the key question. Getting both sides to recognise the divide is the key point.
73063. Lloyd Flack at 18:37 PM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       People without intellectual integrity themselves cannot understand intellectual integrity in others. If they let their judgment in a scientific matter be dictated by political or religious prefferences then they believe others must do the same. You see this in the accusations denialists and creationists make against scientists.
73064. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:43 PM on 9 October 2011
       Clouds Over Peer Review
       Lord S @14. Even allowing for the laughable standard of Carters 'paper' - and it really is good for a giggle - surely the economics journal in question would reject it just based on its tone & language!
73065. 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.
73066. 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

73067. 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.
73068. 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.
73069. 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.
73070. Dave123 at 10:48 AM on 9 October 2011
       Book review: The Inquisition of Climate Science
       Bravo Sphaerica!
73071. 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.
73072. 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.
73073. 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.
73074. 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.
73075. 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."
73076. 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.
73077. 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.
73078. 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.
       

73079. 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.
73080. 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.
73081. 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.
73082. 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.
73083. 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.
73084. 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".
73085. 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.

73086. 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.

73087. 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.
73088. 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.
73089. 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.
73090. 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.
73091. 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.
73092. 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.
73093. 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.
73094. 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.

73095. 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.

73096. 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
73097. 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.

73098. 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.
73099. 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.
73100. 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.

Prev  1454  1455  1456  1457  1458  1459  1460  1461  1462  1463  1464  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  Next