Recent Comments
Prev 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 Next
Comments 75351 to 75400:
-
dana1981 at 05:09 AM on 12 September 2011Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Climate sensitivity isn't an input, it's built into the model based on how various feedbacks react to a given forcing. I think understanding ocean interactions was one of the big challenges that took a while, perhaps the amount of CO2 uptake by the oceans. -
skywatcher at 04:28 AM on 12 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
John and the rest of the SkS team, congratulations! 'Well deserved' is an inadequate way to describe it, but it'll have to do. Probably the best climate science communication website on the Net. -
muoncounter at 02:37 AM on 12 September 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Here's a graph of oil pipeline related spills in Alberta, CA (where the tar sands projects are located). Their record on the 15 year period shown - not so good. -- source Historical evidence reveals that the problem of oil pipeline ruptures and spills is endemic to the industry in Alberta. ... As the province pushes forward with tar sands development and aims to export its oil products to China via an extensive pipeline through to Kitimat, British Columbia, Canadians should take notice of this history and its implications for the country's future. Take notice? Nah, it's ok as long as it's not in my backyard. Alberta's tar sand crude is sour - higher in H2S and CO2 content than the light, sweet crude produced in much of the US Gulf Coast. Piping that stuff cross country is not good for the health of the pipe, nor for the people who live along the pipeline route. Desulphurization and CO2 capture has to take place at the upstream end. So anyone living downwind of the production facilities and pipeline route in what was formerly known as 'The Great White North' better bone up on their emergency preparation plans. On second thought, H2S is just a trace gas, so it can't be harmful. -
John Hartz at 02:33 AM on 12 September 2011Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
What are the basic reasons why Hansen et al chose a climate sensitivity of 4.2C as input to their model? -
Camburn at 02:27 AM on 12 September 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
In a perfect world, I wouldn't have to buy insurance as I, nor my employees would ever be involved in an accident. Even tho I maintain my equipment diligently to the highest standards, accidents do occur. When one looks at the per barrel transported verses spilled, it really is quit astonishing that it is as good as it is. -
Camburn at 02:25 AM on 12 September 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
I am an optomist by nature. When I see a downward trend in something that I consider bad, I am all for the trend. As far as more regulation etc, observe the present trend. It appears that the current regulation and employees are doing a fine job. I commend them for doing so. -
muoncounter at 01:37 AM on 12 September 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Camburn#71: "the trend is down, while the volume has risen. A good thing to observe." Not sure what volume you're referring to or if you have a source for that claim. However, it is a good thing to observe that it is not the spill that kills you, it's the pollution that doesn't get cleaned up after the spill: Federal records show that although the pipeline industry reported 25 percent fewer significant incidents from 2001 through 2010 than in the prior decade, the amount of hazardous liquids being spilled, though down, remains substantial. There are still more than 100 significant spills each year — a trend that dates back more than 20 years. And the percentage of dangerous liquids recovered by pipeline operators after a spill has dropped considerably in recent years. Also important to observe that much of this safety is due to federal regulation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who oversees the pipeline agency, acknowledges weaknesses in the program and is asking Congress to pass legislation that would increase penalties for negligent operators and authorize the hiring of additional inspectors. That may be a tough sell in a Congress averse to new spending and stricter regulation. The pro-business agenda of many politicians will kill such regulation - and then you'd better not drink the water. -
Camburn at 01:20 AM on 12 September 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Pete@68: It is a matter of tax policy as far as exportability. A stroke of the pen, and the tax policy will change, and the production will remain in the USA. -
Camburn at 01:17 AM on 12 September 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Note how the trend is down, while the volume has risen. A good thing to observe. Thank you for posting this link. It is very encouraging. -
Lazarus at 01:17 AM on 12 September 2011Spending A Week Above Arctic Circle On M.S. Fram Off Greenland’s West Coast
Beautiful photos too. Doesn't it have some traditional farming? I usually point that out to deniers who claims that the Vikings farmed there with the assumption that it can't be done today. -
muoncounter at 23:27 PM on 11 September 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
A map of 20 years of pipeline related oil spills appears in Sept 9 NYT. Not surprisingly, there's a cluster of spills in the oil patch, places represented by the some of the most vocal deniers: Texas Guvna and would-be King Perry, Oklahoma's Sen. Inhofe, Kansas' Brownback, Louisiana's Sen. Vitter. -
SteveFunk at 23:00 PM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
This is way off topic, but do you have any aboriginal ancestry?Response: [JC] No, I'm half French, half Malaysian (and all Aussie). -
Camburn at 22:29 PM on 11 September 2011Models are unreliable
muoncounter: So you have read the paper? Does it provide anything new that is worthy of paying the rental fee? -
Bob Lacatena at 22:12 PM on 11 September 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
8, cynicus, You might wish to go directly to section 9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century for more information on the accuracy of hindcasting with the models. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:09 PM on 11 September 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
8, cynicus, You missed this line from the original post:Bear in mind that these are models of anthropogenic forcings and temperature changes, which do not include any natural forcings like changes in solar irradiance or volcanic eruptions.
As such, the included figure roughly matches figure b in this graph from chapter 12 of the TAR. That is, it excludes the natural forcings that dominated prior to 1930. -
chriskoz at 21:50 PM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
My post is a proof how well deserved this prize is: I've been neutral towards the climate change debate and really I was taking the "balanced" view fostered by tabloid press. That was until about a month ago when I fisrt looked at SkS. This website really "opened my eyes" at how logical and clear/unrefuttable are the findings of climate science about AGW. The debate should not be called "balanced" when most "skeptics" are simply denialist. Congrats John and the rest of the team! -
Keith Hunter at 21:03 PM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Well done John! -
cynicus at 21:03 PM on 11 September 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
Regarding Figure two: - I assume the two different datasets have been adjusted according to their baselines? I.e. the offset between the measured and projected temperature data is not a result of trying to get the best match on the right hand side of the graph? - Is it known why the hindcast is performing so poorly before 1930 (to my eyeballs)? -
cynicus at 20:43 PM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congratulations John and the team of SkS! Well deserved indeed. -
Bud Ward at 20:21 PM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Great news and hats far off! Keep up the good work. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:52 PM on 11 September 2011OA not OK: Booklet available
Guys. Great series!! You alluded to a future series looking at future ocean chemistry changes. When can we expect to see that? No pressure of course, don't feel that I am breathing down your necks or anything. PANT, PANT, DROOL, DROOL! ... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:58 PM on 11 September 2011Haydn Washington talks Climate Change Denial on Steaming Toad
Luv it JC. And more of the world needs to be introduced to the 'focused' skill of H.G. Aahhg. If only his old partner RR Slavin had been there as well. To those from outside OZ, that is Rampaging Roy Slavin. Roy & HG has always been a name to conjure with. -
Tom Curtis at 15:35 PM on 11 September 2011Models are unreliable
Camburn @397, the performance of the models against the early 20th century has been known for a long time: As can be seen, the trend of the observed temperature changes in the early twentieth century is very close to the modeled temperature changes. Exceptions can be seen in 1909-10 and 1915-17 when the observed temperatures are significantly below the modeled temperatures, but both of those periods coincide with < ahref="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml">strong La Nina years (exceptionally so in 1917). A further exception can be found in the period 1938-1945 in which the observed temperatures lie well above the modeled line. This is partially explained by a strong El Nino in 1940-41. The unexplained increase represents approximately 10% of the increase in temperature between the 1910's and the 1940's. It may well be explained by a dip in anthropogenic sulfates at the time, or indeed by a sudden influx of black carbon aerosols. Regardless, trying to interpret an approx 10% at one point as "Climate models don't show the warming in the early 20th Century" (my emphasis) is bizzare. Your statement was both unequivocal and wrong. Your follow up that "models do a poor job replicating the temp pattern" seems to come down to this - Climate models do a poor job at retrodicting the exact year of ENSO fluctuations (as opposed to their frequency), and the onset of wars and depressions. Well, your probably right on that, but I don't think a failure to predict WWII (or the exact amount of black carbon released by the blitz) constitutes a serious problem for climate modelers. -
muoncounter at 13:40 PM on 11 September 2011Models are unreliable
Camburn#398: "The statement of the abstract that the models do not do a good job of hindcast is a fact. " Of what use is a selectively chosen, isolated fact, without context or mechanism? This paper calls for higher positive feedback; Camburn is on record siding with Spencer on the side of low feedback and therefore low sensitivity. I would think you'd be running away from this paper as fast as possible - if you agree with it, you are contradicting your support of Spencer and tacitly siding with Dessler. Surely that's not your intent? -
Bob Lacatena at 13:13 PM on 11 September 2011Models are unreliable
397, Camburn, Lame response. You've been caught red-handed misrepresenting a paper abstract to try to imply doubt about climate science. Then you compound the error by acting as if your misrepresentation is still a reasonable interpretation. This is typical denialism, laid bare for anyone with half a brain to look at and recognize. Thank you for the demonstration. -
keithpickering at 12:47 PM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
WOW! congratulations all! And having contributed an article during 2011, I now have a very inflated addition to my resume ... ;-) -
Camburn at 12:29 PM on 11 September 2011Models are unreliable
Tom: As far as feedback, that is in question. The statement of the abstract that the models do not do a good job of hindcast is a fact. -
Camburn at 12:27 PM on 11 September 2011Models are unreliable
Tom: The hindsight of the models do a poor job replicating the temp pattern in the early 20th century. That is obvious from the abstract. As to my question, is the paper worth paying the rental fee for? Someone may be able to access this and give an opinion. Abstracts are a hint, but the meat of an issue is in the paper itself. -
Tom Curtis at 11:53 AM on 11 September 2011Models are unreliable
Camburn @395, I cannot comment on the paper, but I can comment on your misrepresentation of the abstract. The relevant sentence, just one item out of many discussed is:"Few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940. The simulated trend is too low, particularly in the tropics, even allowing for internal variability, suggesting there is too little positive forcing or too much negative forcing in the models at this time."
There is a very large difference between the claim that "Climate models don't show the warming in the early 20th Century" and the actual claim in the abstract that the warming shown by most models is not as great as that observed. There is also a difference between your blanket "Climate models" (indicating all Climate models) and the abstracts concession that a few models do in fact show the correct trend. It is difficult to not believe that your misrepresentation of the contents of the abstract is deliberate. Further, your choice of just one sentence to highlight out of the abstract also shows bias. Why not, for example, discuss this sentence:"Over the whole of the 20th century, the feedback strength is likely to be underestimated by the multimodel mean."
The answer, I am sure, is that you do not want people thinking about the possibility that climate sensitivity is more than that which the models indicate. -
Camburn at 11:31 AM on 11 September 2011Models are unreliable
This is an interesting abstract. Does anyone here have a journal handy to read it and know if it is worth the subscription rental? Climate models don't show the warming in the early 20th century -
dhogaza at 09:47 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Nice! Good job! Can't help but notice that Certain Names aren't adding to the congrats. They certainly jump on the other threads fast enough. -
Tenney Naumer at 07:20 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
You are all so fabulous, and it is great that your contributions have been recognized in this way. -
RobertLeven at 06:40 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congratulations to John and all others working for this fantastic resource. -
stonefly at 06:34 AM on 11 September 2011Climate's changed before
Thanks, Tom, Very informative. It brings up new questions for me, but I'll save 'em while I do more reading. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 06:11 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congrats John and also to all your contributors and mods. Totally deserved. -
WheelsOC at 05:52 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
An award richly deserved. SkS is the TalkOrigins of climate debates, an invaluable resource and teaching tool. -
John Hartz at 02:08 AM on 11 September 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
The following is from the most historically in-depth, recently published article on Galileo that I have come across. "For scientists it shows that if you are in agreement with most of your colleagues, you will most likely be forgotten while history remembers some crank. For advocates of non-consensus positions (e.g., AGW skeptics, Intelligent Design theorists) it teaches that claiming your theory is correct is no substitute for backing it up with experiments and data (even if you are right). For aggressively self-confident people the lesson is that sometimes being persistent and believing in yourself will just get you into trouble. For Catholics it provides an example of why you shouldn’t insult the Pope (at least when there is an Inquisition going on)." Source: "The Myth of Galileo: A Story With a (Mostly) Valuable Lesson for Today by Joe Carter," First Things, Sep 8, 2011 To access the article, click here. -
Lloyd Flack at 01:59 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congratulations John and team. You thoroughly deserve it for creating the best denialist squishing facility around. Keep up the good work. -
Svatli at 00:52 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congratulation to John Cook and the SkS team! -
John Hartz at 00:44 AM on 11 September 2011Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
Dana & Marcus: Thanks for the feedback re the term, "error bars." -
Lou Grinzo at 00:44 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
A big cheer for John and the whole SkS team! And I would add to that my sincere thanks for everything they've done to promote education about climate change and its ramifications. This site is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in the subject. -
John Russell at 00:36 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Well done! A small reward for a lot of hard work. -
John Hartz at 00:34 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Encore! Encore! -
Jeff T at 00:17 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congratulations on receiving a much deserved award! -
Marco at 00:05 AM on 11 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congratulations to John and all other contributors! -
Papy at 23:33 PM on 10 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
This is what happens when you create and share a website of public interest. Congrats to John and his team ! -
G McGuigan at 22:43 PM on 10 September 2011CO2 is just a trace gas
here is another comparison of trace gases. Hydrogen Sulfide - H2S. it occurs naturally typically in swamps and sewers as well as emmitted from volcanoes. 0.00047 ppm is the recognition threshold, the concentration at which 50% of humans can detect the characteristic odor of hydrogen sulfide,[14] normally described as resembling "a rotten egg". Less than 10 ppm has an exposure limit of 8 hours per day. 10–20 ppm is the borderline concentration for eye irritation. 50–100 ppm leads to eye damage. At 100–150 ppm the olfactory nerve is paralyzed after a few inhalations, and the sense of smell disappears, often together with awareness of danger.[15][16] 320–530 ppm leads to pulmonary edema with the possibility of death. 530–1000 ppm causes strong stimulation of the central nervous system and rapid breathing, leading to loss of breathing. 800 ppm is the lethal concentration for 50% of humans for 5 minutes exposure (LC50). Concentrations over 1000 ppm cause immediate collapse with loss of breathing, even after inhalation of a single breath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide -
mr.duget at 21:13 PM on 10 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
Congrats. Well deserved. -
G McGuigan at 20:28 PM on 10 September 2011Just Deserts: Winning the 2011 Eureka Prize
A heart warming endorsement for the hard work you and your team do. I have been referring confused friends and family to you excellent website for over a year now. Cheers to you. -
Bern at 20:16 PM on 10 September 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC TAR
Is it possible to put a marker on the graphs for this and the other 'lessons from predictions' articles, that shows exactly what part of the graph was predicted? In this case, the TAR was in 2001, I presume it included data up until 2000, so forecast is from that date, with the prior being hindcasting. Might be helpful for folks to see exactly how much prediction there is - the rest indicates how well their model fits the measured data, but isn't an actual prediction, per se.
Prev 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 Next