Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 Next
Comments 76201 to 76250:
-
Rob Painting at 14:55 PM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
Scadden P @ 20 & Dan Bailey (moderator comment) @ 15 - There has been a dramatic increase in ENSO severity during the last century. See Gergis & Fowler (2006) "Although extreme events are seen throughout the 478-year reconstruction, 43% of the extreme ENSO events noted since A.D. 1525 occur during the 20th century, with an obvious bias towards enhanced El Nino conditions in recent decades. Of the total number of extreme event years reconstructed, 30% of all reconstructed ENSO event years occur post-1940 alone suggesting that recent ENSO variability appears anomalous in the context of the past five centuries." The frequency and intensity of ENSO appears to be tied to the mean state of the tropical Pacific. When equatorial waters in the central and eastern Pacific are warm, frequency and intensity are increased. When cooler, activity diminishes, although there can be huge swings in intensity during these cooler periods. See Li (2011)
As far as future projections are concerned, that's unsettled for now. Climate models seem split on whether we'll see an increase/decrease in ENSO activity. See Vecchi & Wittenburg (2009) and Collins (2010)
-
Bern at 14:55 PM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
muoncounter: that is indeed extraordinary. I wonder if Curry offers extraordinary evidence to explain her change of mind on global warming? If not, then it certainly leaves one wondering as to how & why someone can so completely change their public statements on an issue. As you've suggested, in politics it's all too common, and driven by a motivation to gain or retain elected office. Elsewhere, the motivation is generally ideological, religious, or financial (or a combination thereof). -
skywatcher at 13:53 PM on 29 August 2011Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
Excellent article. Contrarians often comfort themselves with by suggesting that climate sensitivity is about 1C per doubling and that you can only get to higher sensitivities through "hypothesised positive feedbacks". They don't appreciate the physical reality of the feedbacks, and that they are not only real, present and active today, but also absolutely necessary to explain past climate change. You cannot explain climate with negative net feedbacks. Ice-albedo feedback seems a very appropriate topic as we head below 5 million sq km IJIS extent in Arctic for only the 4th time, which is the 4th time in 5 years. Late summer Arctic sea ice volume is also desperately low, and with futher reduction, extent loss is certain and so will be a further increase in the albedo feedback. -
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 29 August 2011Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
"I suppose what I am getting at at what stage can we start safely matching extreme weather events to AGW?" Doing this scientifically requires matching observations of weather to predictions from the climate models. As I understand it, only really disruptions to the hydrological cycle (drought and extreme precipitation events) are settled science within the predictions. Hurricanes are not. AR4 discussed extreme precipitation events but there was not really a long enough record to be making strong statements. Droughts will wax and wane in cycles but the pattern of drought is consistent with predictions. I dont believe you can link any single weather event to AGW - only trends in frequency and/or intensity. -
scaddenp at 13:44 PM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
This discussion belongs here. I have commented there. -
Stevo at 13:22 PM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
So is it safe to work on the principle that at the moment the indications are that the ENSO may be more intense but not neccessarily more frequent? Also it seems that ENSO is claimed to be the driver of intense weather events in eastern North America and Africa. Is that true? I suppose what I am getting at at what stage can we start safely matching extreme weather events to AGW? -
Bob Lacatena at 12:56 PM on 29 August 2011Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
12, Camburn, Your own link belies your statement, and you provide no other supporting links. Michael Sweet said (correctly):For the last 5,000 years (or more) the Arctic sea ice has been a constant ice sheet over most of the Arctic Ocean.
Your link said:”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
See the difference? 5,000 years versus 6,000-7,000? Coincidentally, temperatures have been dropping for the last 7,000 years, which marked the Holocene Climactic Optimum, when temperatures were approximately roughly equal to what they are today. So evidence that the Arctic had less ice 7,000 years ago is further evidence of current warming, what that warming will do, and the fact that warming above and beyond that will have unheard of effects. It's all consistent... all except your personal interpretation of it, that is. -
Sceptical Wombat at 12:48 PM on 29 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
The question I would ask Salby is what he means by saying that anthropogenic emissions only account or 5% of the increase in CO2. Presumably he means that if the Industrial Revolution had not occurred then CO2 levels would still have gone up by 95% of the amount by which they did increase. That leaves the question of where the CO2 we emitted has gone and where the increase in CO2 we observe came from. If we assume that 97.5% of the CO2 we emitted has been soaked up by negative feed back we must assume that the same would be true of the CO2 from the natural source that is responsible for the observed increase. In other words there is an as yet undiscovered source which is emitting 19 times as much as we are emitting and an undiscovered sink which increases proportionately to increases in CO2 in the atmosphere and is currently absorbing a 19.5 times the amount we are emitting. That looks like a very big source and a very big sink - should be easy to find. -
Camburn at 12:39 PM on 29 August 2011Climate Sensitivity: Feedbacks Anyone?
michael sweet@4: Your point about Arctic Ice is not correct. Study of north shores of Greenland Paleo study of Greenland North Beach Holland also had a very extensive study on Arctic Ice, but it seems the url to the paper is no longer viable. There are also paleo studies of bow head whales that dispute that the Arctic Ice has been stable for the past 7,000 years. In fact, it has flucuated dramatically. -
SteveS at 12:32 PM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
Sphaerica@18: While this paper (ENSO-Scale Variability in the Eocene Greenhouse Recorded by Fossil Bivalves and Wood from Antarctic) doesn't seem to say anything about the intensity of ENSO, it does seem to indicate that the frequency will be unchanged by warming temperatures. Also a blurb here. -
scaddenp at 12:26 PM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
Also, Boer et al 2004. "Three streams of evidence, namely simulations with coupled models, feedback analysis in the tropical Pacific, and observation-based paleoclimate reconstructions, all support the expectation of a future mean El Nin˜o-like temperature response to the positive radiative forcing resulting from a continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations." However, a multi-model study van Oldenborgh et al 2005 isnt so definite, and Guilyardi 2005 concluded "There are no clear indications of an El Nino frequency change with increased GHG." This seems to be repeated in later papers. I would say this is still unsettled science unless someone has some newer evidence.Moderator Response: [mc] fixed closing link tag -
muoncounter at 10:41 AM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
Sphaerica#16: "unable to find any papers (yet) that explicitly say that climate change will affect (increase) ENSO events." An oldie-but-a-goodie: Timmermann 1999 Increased El Nino frequency in a climate model forced by future greenhouse warming The tropical Pacific climate system is thus predicted to undergo strong changes if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase. The climatic effects will be threefold. First, the mean climate in the tropical Pacific region will change towards a state corresponding to present-day El Nino conditions. It is therefore likely that events typical of El Nino will also become more frequent. Second, a stronger interannual variability will be superimposed on the changes in the mean state, so year-to-year variations may become more extreme under enhanced greenhouse conditions. Third, the interannual variability will be more strongly skewed, with strong cold events (relative to the warmer mean state) becoming more frequent. That last one sounds like a description of the last couple of winters. -
Tom Curtis at 10:28 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
econ101lab @215, your source appears to suggest that GISSTEMP temperatures are arrived at by simply cutting and pasting some other temperature from within a 1200 km radius. That is simply false. Rather, all stations within a 1200 km radius (over land) are given a weighting depending on their distance from center of the cell. The weighting is (1200 - distance in km from the center of the cell)/1200. All stations within range are then used to give a weighted average for the cell. The procedure is explained in detail in Averages and Anomalies part 1B. Very importantly, the HadCRUT is calculated by taking a simple mean of all stations within a cell, with no extrapolation. This is important because HadCRUT and GissTemp show effectively the same trend if you exclude polar regions, ie, the regions HadCRUT does not cover due to lack of surface stations. That shows the GissTemp procedure does not introduce a spurious trend. The comparison between GistTemp and DMI in the Arctic shows their extrapolation does not introduce a spurious trend in the Arctic either. Beyond that I heartily recommend you read the links provided by DB (inline comment @216) and KR @219. You should also add Ned's article on Assessing global surface temperature reconstructions to your reading. Finally, climate science is a diverse beast. Some parts of it are as well established as any other scientific theory, while other parts are relatively tenuous. Very little of it is as tenuous as even the best established theorems of macro-economics, and certainly the recent temperature record is not open to serious dispute. Is it settled science? Well researchers in the field will always try to improve their methods and eliminate assumptions that may have led them astray. But the results are sufficiently well established that people outside that narrow field can take the current results as being settled for the purposes of any further research they need to do. -
John Hartz at 10:10 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
SkS should create a button for its series of articles about Dr. Curry's pronouncements -- "Curry's Curios" perhaps. -
Bob Lacatena at 10:09 AM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
15, apiratelooksat50, FYI, all of those references I supplied are vague and inconclusive. My own opinion at the moment would be that while a climate-change-enhances-ENSO connection seems logical, there is as yet no substantive evidence of it.Response:[DB] Bob, Rob Painting is pretty up to speed on studies ENSO-related. Perhaps Rob could be a resource on this.
-
Bob Lacatena at 10:05 AM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
15, apiratelooksat50, AR4 has this: 3.6.2 El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Tropical/Extratropical Interactions With this statement:Extremes of the hydrological cycle such as floods and droughts are common with ENSO and are apt to be enhanced with global warming (Trenberth et al., 2003). For example, the modest 2002–2003 El Niño was associated with a drought in Australia, made much worse by record-breaking heat (Nicholls, 2004; and see Section 3.8.4, Box 3.6). Thus, whether observed changes in ENSO behaviour are physically linked to global climate change is a research question of great importance.
Also: ENSO Amplitude Change in Observation and Coupled Models [ZHANG Qiong1 (张 琼), GUAN Yue1,3 (关 月), and YANG Haijun, 2007] and: Shifts in ENSO coupling processes under global warming [Sjoukje Philip and Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, 2006] -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:54 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
econ101lab, you stated you like to look at a variety of sources and check. That would be the right attitude. However, from what you wrote so far, I see little variety in the type of sources you look at and you are asking others to check for you. How come? In one of your posts, you say "if true." That suggests you have not actually looked into whether or not it is. As for the CERN results, one would be hard pressed to point exactly what words or numbers from Kirkby et al can be used to support the flashy headlines that you deemed appropriate to reproduce here. Others have supplied the links you need to check into that but, once again, I am surprised that you had not already found these on your own. The kind of skeptical attitude you claim would have allowed you to find these sources in only a few minutes of search engine use. -
scaddenp at 09:52 AM on 29 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Eric, I defined "effective" in second to last paragraph of the article. I tightened up the definition to get rid of suggestions that you can do much good with simple efficiency gains. Efficiency alone (defining efficiency as doing same but with less energy) cannot produce the required reduction and here is why. Firstly, people wherever they are need heating/cooling/lighting, all subject to carnot efficiency limits. Moving people around in the job economy doesn't change that unless you are moving a significant number of people from inside to outside. Moving goods is quite efficient - accounting for only about 20% of liquid FF. If you eliminated that completely its only about 10kwh/p/d. Moving people is the problem as you said. It is the cheapness of transport and economies of scale that cause centralizing of industry. Likewise, people will drive to malls with free parking because the economies of scale making prices cheaper and requires less walking. It's economics, not a local government conspiracy. I also find your comments of local government being in cahoots with developers for dense housing and service extensions bazaar. Services cost. Dense housing is good use of land and far more efficient for delivery of services. Our local government hate extending services and since the properties pay for it, you find offgrid installations happening where it is cheaper to go off grid rather than connect to services. Revenue must match service cost. Surely your local government is not dividend-paying companies that are trying to increase revenue to make a profit? Inefficient cars and houses are a problem but surely it isn't the libertarian way to require minimum fuel economy standard and "passivhaus"-type standards that other more left-leaning countries demand? However, I would also point out that increasing transport efficiency to 100% would save you only 52kwh/p/d. Eliminating all space-heating costs for houses would save another 7kwh/p/d. What's your alternative to local zoning? I'll bet it isn't putting up with pig farm or 10 storey factory on your back fence. Fight each and every development through the courts to arbitrate of respective rights of each land owner? "There are really no limits to efficiency". Yes, there really are. Physics is not an arbitrary limit. All this effort on efficiency is about avoiding the actual effective way to reduce GHG emissions - changing the source of energy. I quite agree that you cant have the same society with a reduction from 200 to 60 by efficiency alone. You can though if change the price equation so it makes sense to invest in whatever is next-cheapest option for energy generation other than FF. The left can do with simple ban on new FF generation, no taxes, no admin cost. However, the right hates that so what is your way? You are extremely concerned about rights of people holding shares in coal. How come you aren't also concerned about the rights of those affected by GHG emission? This is the core of issue. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:51 AM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
15, apiratelooksat50, I noticed the same thing. I've been unable to find any papers (yet) that explicitly say that climate change will affect (increase) ENSO events. I did find the following statements attributed to Trenberth:“There have been changes in the El Niño-La Niña cycle since the 1970s. It’s a complex cycle but the associated droughts, flooding and other manifestations have been stronger over the last 30 to 40 years,” Trenberth told Tierramérica. Since climate change has fundamentally altered the global climate system, trapping more heat and about four percent more water vapour in the atmosphere, it is reasonable to conclude it has affected the ENSO cycle. “It would be surprising if there wasn’t an effect,” Trenberth said.
I'll keep looking for actual scientific studies on the subject. If anyone else knows of any, it would be appreciated. -
bibasir at 09:21 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
I continue to be disappointed in how little science is presented in Dr. Curry's pronouncements. She also fails to point out that uncertainty cuts both ways. -
otter17 at 09:12 AM on 29 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Camburn @ 109 "What subsidies are you talking about regarding FF?" There was a bit of a political buzz for a while in the USA about repealing oil subsidies. http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/02/01/196008/obama-vs-dirty-energy-subsidies/ http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/22/208130/why-oil-companies-dont-need-tax-subsidies/ Essentially, what the wind industry wants is a level playing field. Here is a pretty good factsheet summary of the subsidy playing field. http://www.awea.org/_cs_upload/blog/5400_1.pdf Really, the fossil fuel subsidies aren't incredibly large. Repealing those subsidies and improving the renewable subsidies would probably not be the magic bullet. -
muoncounter at 08:44 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
chris#9: That is a stunning find; the paper is indeed available in pdf from your link - thanks! It is quite a difference from the current party line, which includes:And finally, I’m sure you knew it had to be coming: Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming The quote is from Bill McKibben, cited in a post at Collide-a-Scape. Apparently Kevin Trenberth’s reversal of the null hypothesis has taken hold in certain segments.
The 2006 paper quotes Trenberth as inspiration: Trenberth (2005) published a commentary in Science raising the issue as to whether the increase in North Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995 could be attributed to global warming. This paper motivated us to begin looking at global hurricane data. Here is Curry's own reversal of the null hypothesis: while there are uncertainties and heterogeneities in the global hurricane dataset, the magnitude of the trend identified by WHCC is sufficiently large that the null hypothesis must be rejected based upon the currently documented uncertainties in the dataset. Acknowledgments go to Trenberth, Emmanuel and others - most notably the arch-enemy Joe Romm; a far cry from thanking the denizens of ClimateEtc for their 'contributions.' I believe this is known in political circles as a flip-flop. -
apiratelooksat50 at 08:43 AM on 29 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
Badger at 5 I followed your link and read the article. It refers to the well documented natural phenomena of El Nino and La Nina, and then makes a reference to AGW having an effect on these cycles. However, it does not provide any background data to support that claim. Is there any available? -
KeenOn350 at 08:33 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
Seems to me that Curry's latest is simply an erudite game with words, "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." DaveW -
chris at 08:18 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
The change in Dr. Curry's approach to science in a few short years is fascinating. I was very impressed with the first paper of hers I read which is a sort of forensic/logical dissection of the arguments used by various people including "well-known global warming deniers" (her phrase) who set about muddying the interpretations on her earlier study of increased contemporary hurricane intensity. She comes down firmly on the side of the hypothesis (incorporated in the title of her paper just below), and describes the problems wth media and World Wide Web in muddying the debate. J. A. Curry, P. J. Webster, AND G. J. Holland (2006) Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is causing a global increase in hurricane intensity Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc. Aug 2006, 1025-1037 link to paper (hope it's freely accesible) The abstract of the paper is fascinating as it indicates a startling volte face in her subsequent approach to science, science misrepresentation, and uncertainty:abstract: This complex hypothesis has been muddied frequently in recent public debate, yet can be clarified by laying bare the underlying causal chain and potential approach to verification.
Since now she's actively promoting "muddying" of the science in "public debate". And whereas (as muoncounter has described above) Curry and Webster quibble over the phrase from the IPCC report that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,” (apparently forgetting that this phrase only has meaning in the context of the large amount of evidence presented in the associated reports), these two (Curry and Webster) were careful to point out in the hurricane/hypothesis paper that:"These simulations and analyses provide solid evidence that the global surface temperature trend since 1970 (including the trend in tropical SSTs) cannot be reproduced in climate models without the inclusion of anthropogenic greenhouse gases."
...and addressing the null hypothesis that: "Recent trends in tropical surface temperatures are not a response to greenhouse warming.", Curry and Webster come down firmly on the sie of rejecting the null hypothesis:"Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected because the trend in tropical SST cannot be explained by natural internal variability and/or volcanic eruptions or solar variability, and the observed trend is consistent with model simulations associated with forcing from greenhouse gases."
What on earth happened? From a careful and logical analysis of the evidence that bears on an aspect of climate science including cautionary accounts about the problems of science denialism and Web- and media-based misrepresentation....to a complete switch of viewpoint in which Web-based misrepresentation and promotion of nonsensical faux-explanations of otherwise rather well-supported science are actively encouraged....all in the space of a few years... -
muoncounter at 08:13 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
AB#7: "I thought that had been done already." Spend some quality time browsing the comments on these misinformer sites and you'll find that folks there do not inhabit the same reality as the rest of us. In their world, warming stopped in '98, the warmest year was '34, the Arctic is recovering nicely, etc. There's even a new meme starting today: Hurricanes aren't linked to warming - because Irene didn't get to cat 4 or 5 and 'weakened' as it moved north. The fact that some can make such statements before the rain stops and the damage assessment is done is repugnant to anyone who has ever lived through such a storm. When a serious scientist makes a statement like 'we need evidenced-based analysis,' you have to wonder if they haven't been in that world so long they would no longer recognize ours. -
PrezMulkeyUnity at 07:44 AM on 29 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
In order for these politicians to have credibility with their anti-science arguments, they must damage or dismiss the credibility of our most trusted scientific institutions. I have seen this strategy before. I recently had the displeasure of sharing a podium with Willie Soon. Soon began his talk with ad hominem attacks on Holdren, Cicerone, and Lubchenco. His statements about the first two implied that they had an ulterior motive and were in collusion. The logical extension of his remarks is that there is a vast conspiracy at the top to control U.S. science. For Lubchenco, his remarks were more personal, suggesting that she knows that she is propagating falsehoods about ocean acidification and that she is seeking personal gain by doing so. I suspected that Soon had been coached, and it seems likely that he is well rewarded for his efforts. In contrast, my colleague and I from the University of Idaho were at the symposium to present the view of legitimate science, and we were certainly not well paid. Soon's attacks and bogus science were well received by an audience full of partisans, most of whom held advanced degrees. We should be deeply concerned with the fact that leading presidential candidates have assailed the credibility of our best scientific institutions. As reviewed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the list of organizations and academies endorsing the basic tenants of AGW is exhaustive -
econ101lab at 07:17 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
Thank you KR! -
Temp record is unreliable
econ101lab - Welcome to SkS! Regarding CERN, I would suggest taking a look at: * ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change * The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting… (RealClimate) Now, on Arctic temperatures: * DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase? Local temperatures vary a lot. However, the temperature anomaly, the change in temperature over time, season, climate changes, etc., that anomaly does not vary much over fairly large distances. Please look at some of the information on how these averages are done - on this site, that can be found at: * Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change * Part 1B. * Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think * Part 2B There's a lot of (dis)information out there, and it all sounds plausible at first glance. I would strongly encourage taking a look at how these temperatures are arrived at, and seeing why what gets posted on these 'skeptical' blogs is incorrect. -
AnotherBee at 07:03 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
"To be convincing, the arguments for climate change need to change from the one-sided consilience of evidence model to parallel evidence-based analyses of competing hypotheses." So, for example, we need parallel evidenced-based analyses of the following competing hypotheses:- 1. "The earth is warming" vs "The earth is not warming" 2. "It's CO2 forcing" vs "It's the sun" 3. "It's anthropogenic CO2" vs "It's volcanic CO2" and so on. Funny. I thought that had been done already. -
Chris G at 06:52 AM on 29 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
To me, the most succinct observation for putting things into perspective was made by Gavin over at RealClimate, when he noted, "Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure). " The cycles of GCRs are just that, cycles; there is no long term trend. You can't manufacture a long term trend out of data that doesn't have one; at least, you can't with math that has any relationship to the real world. So, it may be that GCRs have an influence on climate, and it might not be. Whatever the case, they can not be used to explain the warming trend. -
GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
I will note that there have indeed been functional (albeit not commercial) thorium reactors built and operated: for example the Molten-salt reactor experiment. India is hard at work on thorium cycle reactors, as is China. CANDU reactors are capable of running on thorium, although I don't know if any have done so. However, there have been no electricity producing thorium reactors up to this point in time, AFAIK. This makes thorium a promising, but not current, technology. -
Stephen Baines at 06:45 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
econ101lab @217 There is an entire post on the CERN results. No one is ignoring. You're just not looking hard enough. You could also read previous posts in this very thread touching on the very issues you mention in other posts. If you are just going to (re)post insinuation of fraud without basis, I don't see how you will add anything here. -
econ101lab at 06:29 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
Any comment on the CERN results? Are you seriously saying you support the "science is settled" position? If so, this site just lost all credibility with me if you leave no room for new scientific evidence or serious scientific inquiry. Sorry to take up your time.Response:[DB] As someone new to SkS, you probably don't know how to best take advantage of all the resources this site has to offer.
There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.
I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.
Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.
Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.
Participants who take the time to ensure a less incendiary tone will also find a great deal of positive and contributory dialogue with other, more knowledgeable participants here (some of whom are actual climate scientists).
-
econ101lab at 06:23 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
Re: 213 Can you point me to some of the data to which you refer regarding the data sets being checked? Not that I find what you say not credible, but I like to check things for myself. ThanksResponse:[DB] "Not that I find what you say not credible, but I like to check things for myself."
Then you would be the first skeptic to actually follow through and do the hard work. However, I suggest you start here, with additional resources available here and here.
Please be sure to report back your results to us.
-
scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 29 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Camburn, that is preposterous. "Streamline???". What does that mean? Removing regulations? Which ones? Everything I have read about nuclear industry in the USA is that without government direct investment (ie to provide fuel for bomb industry), it is starved of investors. Try here for instance. Just googling "why doesnt US invest in nuclear" and I all I find is invest issues, not regulations. Please be specific. -
econ101lab at 06:13 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
Actually it's from a Jim Lacy article in National Review online followed by: The graph below shows how damaging this smoothing is to the data record. Note the warming in the Arctic region. It seems like reason for concern, until one realizes that almost no actual data were used to create those dangerous-looking red zones. Instead, readings from almost 1,000 miles south of the polar regions were substituted for the missing data. How does such a substitution make sense unless one can convince oneself that it gets colder the closer one gets to the equator? The graph doesn't copy and paste. You can check out the whole piece here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275396/perry-and-global-warming-jim-lacey If true, it's not drivel. If false, I like to check around and see what other people have to say. Your affronted attitude I find odd. Why should I trust you any more than Lacy? I don't know either one of you. I like to read from a broad spectrum of opinions and then check around. I bring it here as there seems to be an attempt to use real data. Of course the same could be said from sites on the other side of the question. That being said, I recently read about the CERN results here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/ and here: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/20/cern-update-bombshell-in-the-cosmic-ray-data/ and here: http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/3699-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change.html Not being a scientist but an economist, I find the lack of certainty familiar (the "science" of economics is equally fraught with uncertainty) which makes me question the "settled science" position of one side of this arguement. I also find the proposed solutions by the AGW group absurd when looked at economically. In Michael Levitt's Superfreakonomics, there are proposed mitigation solutions (vs prevention) by a company called Intellectual Ventures headed by Nathan Myrvold (ex CTO of Microsoft) which would cause far less global economic disruption but achieve the same end result. SoSphaerica, pls keep you patronizing comments out of the thread.Response:[DB] Do you mean this graphic:
You seem to frequent disinformation websites, where the focus is on conspiracy theories and not on the primary literature itself.
No wonder you take the position you do.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 05:37 AM on 29 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Hi scaddenp, my assertion about wasting fuel driving to "pointless" jobs needs an amendment. Most local jobs tend to be services and retail which are low paying (and often not carbon friendly like Walmart). But they are an easy fit, just apply with minimal skills and get the job. The better paying jobs are less local mostly because they are concentrated in "high tech" or manufacturing areas (zoning, tax incentives, planned industrial parks, etc). Also the higher paying jobs are less of an immediate fit to someone out of work, there are almost never openings in the area in which one lives due to the sporadic nature of those openings and specialized skills that are needed for each opening. The specific answers to your points about energy use in various sectors are that retail and offices are 37% of commercial and the rest seems hard to reduce (education, health, and others they don't list). The only way to reduce industry use (refining, chemical, paper, metal, other) is reducing the end uses of those products which includes transportation (i.e. some transportation is being counted as part of industry). As for transportation, 59% is cars and light trucks. My friend will be driving his light truck 50 miles each way to his new high-paying job (has the truck for home remodeling work and can't afford a new vehicle). The numbers of SUVs and light trucks in office parking lots is quite amazing. When I look at it I think that retail gasoline should be doubled in price, but I know there are other consequences that need to be addressed first. We may disagree on what you consider "effective". I was reading your head post question and looking for ways to make drastic energy reduction politically effective. In later comments you refer to a reduction of 200kWh/p/d to 60. It seems to me that there are ways to make even that drastic a cut politically effective, but it requires looking carefully at the motivations for the current wastes of energy and targeting those specifically. My flea and farmers market example may seem a bit superficial but the local governments are always trying to shut them down since they eat into tax revenue. One of my main proposals for politically effective solutions is eliminating arbitrary limits to efficiency. I have two good passive solar books and they both show how it possible to become nearly fossil fuel independent for heating and cooling almost anywhere in the U.S. Unfortunately many inefficient suburban dwellings have already been built. But many local zoning laws will require dwellings to face the street whether that is efficient or not. Many municipalities will extend their utilities as far as they can to try to pump up revenue whether it is efficient or not. The local governments are also in cahoots with large developers who will clear cut areas to squeeze in homes creating more tax revenue. They will also generally discourage small businesses in favor of the large retailers. Then our choices are limited to driving 10 miles to a strip mall to buy stuff trucked from some terminal and shipped there from China. We need to manufacture more the way we used to here which will be hard but not impossible. Textiles can still be profitably made in the U.S. (mostly speciality products). Electronics are harder, the entire supply chain is much cheaper in China. But general purpose electronics can be made there to be greatly enhanced here like my Mighty Mule gate opener (among countless examples). Local zoning is often in the way, I have plenty of stories of local authorities preventing or trying to prevent manufacturing facilities from opening up. There are really no limits to efficiency, only our self-imposed limits based on outdated code and customs and promoted by vested interests. It is easy to propose eliminating subsidies, nobody is going to argue with that. It is much more difficult to propose eliminating the hidden subsidies for inefficiency that supposedly limit our FF cutting options (e.g. transport or residential can only be reduced by some percentage above which is impossible). What is impossible is leaving the current consumption, employment and leisure systems the way they are and expect to get political support for the raising of FF prices to achieve the 200 to 60 reduction. Politically, that won't happen. -
muoncounter at 05:26 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
smulkey#5: "Deep introspection and self honesty is required of me." A fundamental point; one that should be required of every scientist, if not every human being. One must ask oneself 'how do I really know this?' or 'can I really support this?' and often 'is what I am about to say really that valuable?' Unfortunately the phenomenon of 'blog science' creates a virtual platform that is all too easy to abuse; unless tempered by these questions, the results are of little or no value. Curry's act of quoting her own blog comments in a published paper takes this to a new and potentially very harmful extreme. I vastly prefer the thinking of the grad student at the end of yesterday's Schneider Symposium who stated something to the effect of "Facebook and Twitter are terrible ways to communicate science." -
Bob Lacatena at 05:09 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
213, econ101lab, Your quote is from Climate Realists. The tone there is blatantly anti-science and conspiratorial, to the extent of being what I would label lunatic fringe. Other comments from that same page include:...no shortage of warmists waiting to pounce... What is troubling, however, is that some of the other candidates for the Republican nomination still accept the theory of man-made warming. Worse, they are apparently prepared to act on their beliefs if elected president. The planet is warming. Well, it was until 1998, when the warming trend abruptly ceased. In truth, it has been warming since 1850, when the last mini–Ice Age ended. The scientists at Great Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admit to using statistical sleights of hand to change the temperature record, so as to show more warming.
How can you take such utter nonsense seriously? How can you even bother to ask about such drivel? -
econ101lab at 04:30 AM on 29 August 2011Temp record is unreliable
Read this recently: ...data manipulation the GISS gets away with every day. You see, although the GISS receives temperature readings from thousands of global stations, it uses only a fraction of them. Unbelievably, the GISS still fills out the thousands of spreadsheet cells, using figures from other sources. So what does the GISS put in a cell that used to have actual data readings? Well, it is using a smoothing technique that allows it to use any temperature reading taken within 750 miles of the location the empty cell represents. For instance, rather than use a temperature reading from a mountaintop in Bolivia, the GISS can substitute a reading from the coast of Peru or from a steamy Brazilian jungle. Does no one in government see how a warming bias might, therefore, be baked into the global record? Accurate?Response:[DB] "Accurate?"
Nope. Not in the least. The various datasets (not just GISS) have been checked & rechecked, both internally and independently. Even amateur "scientists" have replicated the global rise in temperatures using as little as 10% of the station data because there is a global warming signal in the data.
You are repeating memes long ago proven false. Care to share where you heard this and why you bring it up here (meaning SkS; this is definitely an appropriate thread)?
-
PrezMulkeyUnity at 03:35 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
I trust that this comment is not viewed as ad hominem, and I certainly do not mean for it to be taken as such. I have great respect for Dr. Curry and the others that I will mention as productive scientists and esteemed members of their profession. However, I believe that there is a valid point about the social and affective cognition of some of the more prominent and argumentative scientists. Dr. Curry is certainly one of them, as is Pielke, Jr., Pielke, Sr., John Christy, and others that I could name. There can be little doubt that all of these scientists have excellent minds, and there is little question that they have high standards of ethics. Their funding streams appear to be impeccable, and they do not seem to be motivated by vested outside interests. I have no knowledge of how their politics and religious views may or may not influence their conduct of science. To illustrate what I am talking about, take a look at the baroque reasoning about the IPCC definition of uncertainty that Curry uses in her recent submission to AMS. To be sure, her argument is internally consistent and rational, but it is my view an over interpretation of the IPCC process for gaining consensus. Similarly, her criticism of the models is nothing new, and I doubt that any of our mainstream climate modelers would take huge issue with many if not most of her concerns. All of this is beside the real issue here. The monster is NOT the uncertainty, but rather anthropogenic climate change itself. EOS and PNAS both recently published independent surveys of climate scientists and showed that a vastly overwhelming majority of these scientists do indeed consider the basic tenants of anthropogenic forcing of the atmosphere to be settled and agreed upon. For Dr. Curry or anyone to suggest or imply that all of these sharp, critically thinking individuals are misguided by inappropriate faith in certainty is simply too much to swallow whole. As a scientist, my ethical obligation is to falsify hypotheses as I develop my research program. The vast majority of climate scientists and scientists (myself included) would be delighted to falsify AGW. So why do these individuals push back on mainstream climate science so insistently and vehemently? It may be that they simply believe as scientists that we are all wrong, but I think that because we are social primates affective forces are in play. A recent example of this is a British television interview of Chris Field and Roger Pielke, Jr. It is very apparent in this interview that Roger's feelings are hurt and that he is harboring deep resentment. His behavior and arguments are affectively driven, although his language is intellectual. I have seen similar displays from Christy and certainly from Curry. I believe that there is evidence that their seeming crusades, which are presented as intellectual diligence, are in fact an affectively driven response to the criticisms that they have received from the academic community. This is unfortunate, and in this highly politicized environment, it does little to clarify the issues for the lay public. Note that this concern could be leveled at scientists on all sides of AGW. The fundamental reality is that the cost error with respect to AGW is enormous and possibly devastating to our species. I believe that it is not appropriate for any of us to publicly seek personal reparations through intellectual discourse. I am truly sorry if these individuals feel hurt, but the stakes are huge and we should all be focused like a laser on the big issues, not just the intellectual minutia of our respective niches. I question Dr. Curry to ask herself if she really thinks that her line of reasoning will result in the falsification of AGW. If so, then please carry on and work hard to enlighten us. If not, then maybe our world would be better served if you turn your considerable talent to something more productive for our kids and grand kids (e.g., your paper on logical fallacies is destined to be a classic). We all share an obligation to the future and we should be working together to build a better world for our kids. Obviously, the above is simply my opinion based on my observations of my colleagues and their behavior over the last decade. I could be wrong, but I know that It is rough out there, as I am sure Michael Mann would agree. I think that we should all take a deep breath and analyze our motives. I am routinely accused of bad motives and being a knee-jerk liberal, when in fact I work very hard to be a scholar of the literature and a critical thinker. Deep introspection and self honesty is required of me. The bloody tirades focused on Dr. Mann attest to the threatening professional environment of climate science. We should all be bigger than this kind of affectively motivated reasoning. Dr. Curry, in your case, I believe "winning" the argument could result in our children losing the biggest argument of all. Am I sure of this? Well...no, not 100%, but as reported in PNAS about your peers, perhaps I am 97% sure. Thanks for considering my thoughts. Stephen Mulkey, PhD President, Unity CollegeResponse:[DB] Thank you, Dr. Mulkey, for your insightful, measured and reasoned perspective.
-
dhogaza at 02:44 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
"To be convincing, the arguments for climate change need to change from the one-sided consilience of evidence model to parallel evidence-based analyses of competing hypotheses." I guess this explains why she takes the iron sun types who comment on her blog seriously ... just wait until the moon's made of green cheese types find her blog! -
Bob Lacatena at 02:32 AM on 29 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
125, Camburn,I would streamline the regulatory process immediately. That is all it would take.
The naivety demonstrated by this comment boggles the mind. Remove all regulation and the free market will solve all problems, instantly and painlessly? What a wonderful path to utopia. It has, after all, worked so often before in the course of human history. How could the rest of us be so blind? -
muoncounter at 02:26 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
Jeff T#2: That's a common enough problem; it can require a good deal of work (and skill) to see a trend in noisy data. But why populate the forest with scary 'monsters'? -
Jeff T at 02:16 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
The trees seem to prevent Dr. Curry from seeing the forest. -
muoncounter at 02:15 AM on 29 August 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Interesting that we're getting flack over Tamino's work on a sea level thread; his work on min sea ice extent for this year, from October 2010, seems like it will be spot on: I’ll do as I did before: fit a quadratic trend to the September average data from NSIDC, then use that trend to predict that next year’s September average from NSIDC, and next year’s JAXA minimum, will be 4.63 +/- 0.9 million km^2. After all, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior: the trend continues. Compare that to the guesstimates of the folks who hang out in Whatsup land: Joe Bastardi went early in for 5.5 Mkm^2. For what it matters, I will go with him. Aug 27: 4.99 million sq km. Like the man said, the trend continues ... -
michael sweet at 02:01 AM on 29 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Camburn: You have not replied to my question here about how many throium power plants have actually been built. BP has previously told us that no thorium power plants exist anywhere. At 63 you claim "By not agreeing to known tech". Since you have not produced evidence of a single thorium power plant in existence you obviously do not care about "known tech". It would take at least 15 years to prove the thorium technology, presuming that it actually works. It is quite possible that it will not work. This is not a solution that we can start to work on today with any hope of reducing CO2 in the next two decades. The local power company where I live has proposed a nuclear plant. It is only economically viable because of huge government loans and the fact that they are already billing for the nuclear power even though we will not receive any power for at least 10 years. How is it economic if they have to bill ten years in advance of finishing the plant? -
muoncounter at 01:54 AM on 29 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Camburn#125: "if I were elected President tomorrow:" In case you hadn't noticed, the President of the United States doesn't have the power to act unilaterally. Our government is dominated by entrenched corporate interests who have figured out that having congressmen (and women) in their pockets is the key. In the current debacle, the desired result of these corporate interests seems to be paralysis. And that includes this supposed thorium reactor panacea: When an existing industry such as nuclear power generation exists, dominated by only 1-2 manufacturers of equipment (such as GE) and a small number of very large, very entrenched producers, the utilities themselves, there is enormous resistance and active hostility to change. New technologies are not seen by the existing industry as opportunities. They are only threats. The immediate profit-maximizing “rational” action is to invest not in the new technology, but to in government lobbying efforts to block the development of the new technology. Since nuclear power is an established, well-regulated industry with big bucks behind it, it’s well positioned to stop the new technology, at least in the U.S. So your 'solution' would get bogged down in the legislative process, rewritten by lobbyists and die a slow death-by-committee. -
CompFedUp at 01:54 AM on 29 August 2011Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
Seems to me that Curry has made this inapt (or is it inept) metaphor a foundation for her pronouncements on the state of climate science. All that somewhat clever verbiage for what basically amounts to "we don't know everything, so we cannot know or say anything", which is exactly what the rejectionists want to hear. I do agree that giving the commenters over at Climate Etc. a degree of credibility and influence is dangerous and odd; from my various visits there, many are merely using personal political dogma as a basis for their comments, with very little actual science or scientific thought applied to the subject. A more-appropriate venue for the commenters' "contributions" would be a journal in psychology or sociology, not BAMS.
Prev 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 Next
