Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 Next
Comments 76451 to 76500:
-
John Hartz at 02:31 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Suggested reading: "Why Rick Perry Would Put the World on a Fast Track to Total Meltdown: From calling the BP disaster an "act of god" to responding to his state's drought with prayer, Perry's anti-environmental resume is extensive." To access this informative article by Tara Lohan posted (Aug 25)on Alternet, click here. -
Eric the Red at 02:23 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Muon, That was the first report in 2008; it had 400 signers. The second in 209 had 700. The most recent had 1000. Just a possibility. As I said previously, this is not the best way to do science, although there are many here who seem to think so. -
John Hartz at 02:03 AM on 27 August 2011Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?
If you are interested in exploring the issue of climate ethices further, you will want to peruse the postings on the Climate Ethics section of the website of the Rock Ethics Institute of the University of Pennsylvania. -
muoncounter at 01:52 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
EtR#68: "Perry is referring to the growing numbers who are signing reports" Growing numbers, signing reports; sounds like a groundswell of opinion is building. However, EtR fails to mention that the date of this report is December, 2008. Old, irrelevant biased 'news' (it was written by Marc Morano). Badgersouth: This particular tree had no roots in reality; hence it made no sound at all. -
noble_serf at 01:42 AM on 27 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
Thanks to Stephen Leahy and Badgersouth for the links and terminology correction. I've also been reading over at http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/ where they have a collection of great reports. Like this one Preparing for the public health challenges of climate change (PDF) -
John Hartz at 01:27 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Sphaerica et al: Re Eric the Red's baiting posts... "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" -
DSL at 01:14 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Muon: "DSL, I'm shocked; I don't let my high school students get away with reporting unsupported experimental conclusions - or using words like 'could be' and 'seemed' in their writeups." Neither do I, as they discover in the feedback they receive on their first drafts. And these are college freshmen (essentially high school students at that point). The comment was lightly ironed. I agree. It's more than disappointing that Nature would cave to market forces and publish that report with that title. -
muoncounter at 01:02 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
#6/#7: I'm sorry, I find that kind of reporting to be misleading in the extreme. The paper talks about ammonia in parts per trillion as providing nucleation enhancement; this introduces an entirely new independent variable. The news release barely mention this; it is nothing more than a restatement of the premise of the original experiment. The RC analysis (mentioned on the original It's cosmic rays thread) takes this apart even further: ... despite going to a lot of trouble to make sure the chamber was ultra-free of contaminants, the researchers found that within most of the aerosols that formed, there were traces of organic nitrogen compounds that must have been present in almost undetectably low concentrations. So there are uncontrolled contaminants in the experiment. Oops. And then there's the energy question: From the news release, high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. Great, that's what they were looking to find (although the use of 'seemed' makes it a tad ambiguous). However, as reported earlier here, a similar experiment ... found that this effect also took place when they used a radioactive sodium source, which produces gamma rays. So which is it? High energy GCRs, simulated by a particle beam in a contaminated chamber? Low energy naturally occurring gamma rays? They may as well have written a news release that it could all be caused by LGM rather than GCR. Yeah, it could be. That's crappy science reporting; no doubt the deniersphere will run with it. DSL, I'm shocked; I don't let my high school students get away with reporting unsupported experimental conclusions - or using words like 'could be' and 'seemed' in their writeups. -
Michael Le Page at 01:02 AM on 27 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Reading some of the responses to the story I wrote on these results for New Scientist made me realise there is a major misunderstanding on the part of those hailing these results as “proof” that climate rays affect climate. Gavin did explain this in his RealClimate post, but it might be worth restating here in plainer terms: The CLOUD team did find cosmic rays produced a relatively large increase in the aerosol nucleation rate. However, they were comparing no cosmic rays with having cosmic rays (the chamber was shielded). That does not reflect what actually happens in reality: our atmosphere is always being struck cosmic rays, there is never a time when there are no cosmic rays. Changes in the sun's activity produce only tiny changes in the average number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, which means changes in the nucleation rates in the atmosphere due to changes in cosmic rays intensities are going to be much smaller than the 2 to 10 times factor reported in the study. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.900-cloudmaking-another-human-effect-on-the-climate.html -
Bob Lacatena at 00:52 AM on 27 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
68, Eric the Red, Signings like this are a complete joke. They are the equivalent of a commercial for toothpaste saying4 out of 5 housewives, midwifes, little children, college graduates and trash collectors surveyed prefer Zango toothpaste over the leading brand for adequate thermal reduction of invasive oral compounds.
From Eric's link (as if this is a positive):The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Being a scientist, even being intelligent, doesn't qualify one to lead the world on an issue they do not understand. Quite honestly, I find extreme competence in one field to be the first and leading cause of the Dunning-Kruger afflicted. Honestly, this amounts to an appeal to non-authority. It amounts to saying "trust me, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I should, because I know about something entirely different." [And I'll bet they all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.] -
Charlie A at 00:43 AM on 27 August 2011Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC FAR
I note that figures 3 and 4 have different "projections" for years such as 1940 and 1960. Did the "actual" forcings prior to 1990 change between FAR and AR4 ? I assume that the 3 blue lines in Fig 4 are for climate sensitivities of 1.5C, 2.5C and 4.5C per CO2 doubling. Correct? dana1981 says "It's a GHG forcing model, so I took observed GHG changes into account." --- please explain how you took the changes into account in a way to change the plot before 1990. -
Eric the Red at 23:49 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
I suspect that Perry is referring to the growing numbers who are signing reports like the following: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport While the number of scientists signing these types of reports has increased, it does not necessarily indicate that more scientists are questioning global warming, just that more are coming forward. The numbers could have always been there. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:27 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
scaddenp, Lloyd, Tom, others: great thread. I think AnotherBee made a great start to answering scaddenp's (modified) challenge: "If I were convinced that CO2 emissions were to cause major problems, what political solutions would I propose" I disagree, scaddenp, that coal is cheaper due to subsidies. It also happens to be cheap: think $20 shovel and home-made coal stove. One way I would rephrase the challenge is: how would we get Hansen's carbon tax suggestion embraced by the American middle class (note, not right or left). First I would say don't borrow and spend, but save because America has gone way beyond her means (although I know that won't make me very popular). Second, encourage small scale, low energy manufacturing since after consumption, most fuel is wasted driving to pointless service and paperwork jobs. May also need to revamp and subsidize education to put more job seekers into the knowledge industry. AnotherBee's idea of appealing to self-sufficiency should resonate with middle class who, in some part, seem to embrace the idea that they can do a better job of running their lives than the government. Libertarians should also be enticed by reducing government, but also by devolving responsibility to local governments. When things are done locally they tend to be less carbon intensive. Loosen the zoning laws to allow proper passive solar construction. Same solution for allowing more local commerce and a local economy. The flea market / farmers market that I go to every Sunday is 100 times better than Walmart. -
thingsbreak at 23:03 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
@5 Because their results do show the possibility that aerosol nucleation is enhanced by cosmic rays. Whether that translates into any significant effect in real world cloud cover is another story, but the mechanism has been somewhat supported. -
DSL at 22:52 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
No, Muon--the headline is true. Cloud formation may indeed be linked to cosmic rays. The headline would have been just as true before CLOUD. And the fact that the title has nothing to do with the report means little. Half my freshmen do that every semester. And certainly CLOUD formation was linked to cosmic rays. -
muoncounter at 22:42 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
How does NatureNews get away with the headline Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays when the Kirkby paper in question, entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, does not offer any new support for this claim? It's bad enough when the usual suspects are misleading and/or incorrect. Readers here should object to this error with comments on NatureNews. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:20 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Libertarian think-tanks like Heartland and Cato Institute should be waving this banner, but I suspect that subsidy removal would cut deeply into the pockets of important donors to these institutions.Sorry, I've been very busy, but I will read all the comments and respond. First, here's CATO in 2001: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-390es.html and CATO this year: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13071 Seems to me like your suspicions are not correct.
-
Lazarus at 22:16 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Unfortunately Scientific American has a new story with the title and by line; Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere. And at least it does include the quote; "[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step." -
Paul D at 21:36 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Environmental Research Web did a write up: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965 Quote: "Kirkby shares Pierce's caution. He argues that CLOUD's results "say nothing about cosmic-ray effects on clouds" because the aerosols produced in the experiment are far too small to seed clouds." -
muoncounter at 20:54 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
Kirkby's name has a 'k'; it's not Kirby. But why repost an entire article rather than just link to it on our existing 'its cosmic rays' rebuttal?Response:[DB] "Kirkby's name has a 'k'; it's not Kirby"
Fixed. It was interesting to note the sponsor of the rollover ads on the Nature Kirkby et al download page:
What's next, Pathos (the 5th Musketeer)?
-
Bernard J. at 20:33 PM on 26 August 2011ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
TWTB. Excellent summary. I was worried that this one would find it's way around the world before the truth put its shoes on, but in this instance rationality seems to be hot on the heels of propaganda. Well done. -
scaddenp at 14:53 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Fair enough Stephen, but I am not suggesting government do the innovation - just provide the conditions where the market will. Coal subsidy removal is just a start. -
Stephen Baines at 14:37 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Camburn "Government is not innovative at all." You are communicating to us through the internet - which is itself a product of government research. Read up on ARPAnet. -
John Hartz at 14:33 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
"Perry's remarks give the impression that the science of global warming is in dispute, that some scientists feel one way, and some scientists feel another way. He says that skepticism is growing. In fact, our research shows that's not the case. We found that there is solid consensus among the major scientific organizations and that the skeptics seems to be small minority. We rate his statement False." Source: "Rick Perry says more and more scientists are questioning global warming," PoliticFact.com, Aug 17, 2011 To access this informative post, click here. -
scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
"Denial that GHG is a problem". As stated in article, if you dont have solution for GHG mitigation that is compatible with your political values, then it's hard to believe skepticism about climate change is based on appraisal of science. Okay, then without getting the government involved, how would you getreplacing coal when coal is cheaper? The various government strategies proposed (ban new coal stations, pigovian taxes, cap and trade) all focus on this. What is your non-government strategy? As to subsidies here for global, here for USA. Wouldnt you rather have that money back in tax breaks? -
Camburn at 13:43 PM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
scaddenp: Denial of what? I do not want government involved. That stiffles innovation/creativiety etc. Imagine if Thomas Edison was funded by government? Instead, he had great ideas, was funded by private monies, and GE came about. Government is good for building roads, bridges etc. Government is not innovative at all. Otter 17: What subsidies are you talking about regarding FF? -
muoncounter at 13:18 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Thanks, phil; you beat me to identing the great state of Maine (moderate Republican senators, but a new far-right governor). BTW, 'pa' doesn't mean 'father.' pirate, apparently you've never enjoyed this particular pale ale. Yes, a Tea Party beer, debuted no doubt, in a hall where there was some form of celebration. -
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
??? "me" on that diagram is "Maine". (And I have never lived in the US). -
Eric the Red at 13:05 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
I don't know pirate, but muon looks like he put himself in the middle (the red me) and surrounded himself with red and blue dots. -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:57 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Muon at 62 "...who were purged in last year's Tea Party beer hall extravaganza." Do you care to explain this statement? I really don't understand it and I really don't understand why you aren't moderated at times. -
muoncounter at 12:05 PM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Tom C#61: Nice find. I wonder about the scaling of the axes. They have an interactive function for the US Senate; checking only the red and blue states, there is a clear ideological split. It's a bit dated, as there are some good names who were purged in last year's Tea Party beer hall extravaganza.The divide on climate policy is encapsulated in that split.
-
muoncounter at 11:32 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
EtR#400: "Outside of the greater variabiity," Non-starter. Variability is the point of an oscillation. And no, I live in Texas; I am most definitely not all wet - nor am I likely to be anytime soon. But have a look at wikipedia: The studies of historical data show that the recent El Niño variation is most likely linked to global warming. For example, one of the most recent results is that even after subtracting the positive influence of decadal variation, shown to be possibly present in the ENSO trend, the amplitude of the ENSO variability in the observed data still increases, by as much as 60% in the last 50 years. Does not Timmerman's "strong cold events (relative to the warmer mean state) becoming more frequent" describe the last la Nina - the one you'd like to blame for this year's bizarro weather (which is the topic of this thread)? Recall that Timmerman was written in 1999 and his models were for the remainder of this century. "no general agreement" What, exactly, does that phrase mean? If you have new evidence to present, go to any of the existing ENSO threads. Otherwise, there's not much point in a rehash. -
Tom Curtis at 10:47 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Eric the Red @53, your presumption that both parties are equally prone to ideology assumes both parties have equally extreme positions around a centrist position. That assumption is false. This can be seen on the Political Compass of the 2008 Presidential elections:
The compass shows two axes.
The Left-Right Axis shows a continuum from complete state control of production and consumption of economic goods, to zero state control of the production and consumption of goods. Thus the outer extreme of the Left-Right axis would involve slightly more control than imposed in Stalinist Russia, while the extreme Right would propose no state ownership or regulation of economic goods, and zero taxes.
The Authoritarian - Libertarian Axis represents control of personal liberty. An extreme Authoritarian believes in complete State regulation of and individuals moral life, whereas an extreme Libertarian believes in the complete non-regulation of an individuals moral life, except as it involves theft, coercion or violence towards others.
What is missing is an axis for the distinction between autocracy and democracy, which I believe to be a glaring lapse; and also an axis for the distinction between constitutionalism (rule of law) and rule by persons. There is no meaningful distinction on these axes between major parties in America, so the lack is not significant for this purpose.
Coming back to the main point, the centrist positions of the Democrats shows a lack of ideological commitment on their part. The presumption that their views on the science is strongly influenced by ideology is therefore without warrant.
-
Doug Mackie at 10:33 AM on 26 August 2011OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
Loren, sorry you don't like the style. I am not in the business of appeasment. The posts were written, as explicitly stated, and in keeping with the mission ethos of this website, to give people the chemistry background to "slice and dice the denialists." -
Eric the Red at 10:21 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Muon, Outside of the greater variabiity, does not your emphasis indicate that changes will favor El Nino conditions? At least that is what I am reading from the first point above. Or are you all wet on this first point? There is no general agreement on the stronger variability, although it is possible as Timmerman states. -
dana1981 at 10:16 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
badger - where do you see the slideshow on that page? -
John Hartz at 10:01 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
A slideshow version of a portion of Dana's article was posted today (Aug 25) by The Center for Public Integrity. Here's an excerpt from the intoductory text. "While 74 percent of Americans are worried about climate change, according to a March study, all but two of the Republican candidates for president have expressed skepticism about climate change. And while the Environmental Protection Agency was created four decades ago by a leading Republican, some of today's GOP candidates want to strip it of authority or shut it down almost entirely . Records of some of the candidates show their stances aren't just the stuff of campaign trail speeches." Source: "Eight views on climate change: A guide to the Republican candidates" by Evan Bush, iWatchNews, Aug 25, 2011 -
otter17 at 09:58 AM on 26 August 2011Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
What next? Will we see some brave soul attempt to disprove the greenhouse properties of CO2, methane, and NO2? -
John Hartz at 09:42 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
"In fairness to Romney, he is not all that unique in his new rhetoric. For years, politicians have confessed uncertainty on the science and, from that, concluded that the government should do too little or nothing to address it. This line might continue to have political appeal in GOP primaries. But it’s still non-sensical on the merits." Source: "Mitt Romney’s position on climate change" by Stephen Stromberg, PostPartisan blog, Washington Post, Aug 25, 2011 -
muoncounter at 09:26 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
scaddenp#398: "amplitude of ENSO variation will increase" Spot on. EtR is indeed all wet on this idea. As far back as 1999, Timmerman et al saw the potential for these changes: 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. -- emphasis added The key is that stronger variability is superimposed on the warming trend. I see a clear analogy with increasing the energy content of an already oscillating system. More energy = more amplitude in both directions. -
Kevin3581 at 08:52 AM on 26 August 2011Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss
To all of you wondering about the wisdom or futility of participating in WUWT or other comments sections and the fact you just can't get through to convince folks. Please keep going! The person you will convince is not who you are arguing with, but rather the one who is simply reading the blogs w/out a deep committment one way or the other -- just looking. It is apparent, when you participate w/a cool head and good science, that you are the one who knows what is going on (vs. the conspiracy talker). Just having your voices there is important for that reason. Being polite, not engaging in ad homs, being very straight and reasoned, while the opponent becomes increasingly unhinged shows others the quality of arguement on each side. Frequent use of citations to back up your points helps too. True also for general news sites that occasionally report on climate -- comments generally flooded by non-sci types -- good science voices will help, esp if they are polite and don't talk down. The person you are trying to convince is in the audience, not on stage. -
Eric the Red at 08:17 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
Stephen, I would echo most of your thoughts. The party leadership may pull the Republican party do far the general populace to become an endangered species. There will be those Republicans who stick with the party just for the support on election day, because jumping ship would be political suicide in their district. Local politicians do not seem to echo the party leadership. Yes, things could be worse. I have seen predictions both much higher and lower than the IPCC range, which I believe is only one standard deviation. Correct me if I am wrong on that. This is not meant to inflict uncertainty into the debate and therefore, stalement (as some have accuse me of inciting), but rather to show that the issue is not black and white, but has multiple shades of grey. -
Stephen Baines at 07:57 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
EtR I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on anti-science thinking, so I agree with your admonition there. I have heard crazy-making things from some dems, just not with regard to climate science. The autism debate comes to mind. "the middle-ground politicians have similar opinions on this issue." I would have agreed with you some years ago. A lot of scientists I know are what might be called fiscal conservatives. Heck, Hansen, Alley, Emmanuel and Keeling are/were all republicans - as was my doctoral advisor. We used to have rep. Boehlert in NY, a real champion of science. But in the last week I have read at least 10 posts on blogs stating outright that belief in AGW amounts to a religion and brands one as a liberal democrat out to steal liberty (at the very least). Now blog posts are probably not a random sample, but this is what people see more and more of when they move about the web - it is the public face of the debate. Believing the evidence for AGW has somehow become a "political stance." It has an effect...I see it in my classroom. So things seem to have changed - and this post points to one mechanism behind that change. "Middle ground politicians" who believe the science (e.g. Huntsman) can no longer survive the Republican Primary Process. The leadership has shifted to the right to appease the most militant forces that drive that process - and that rightward shift includes consideration of climate change because of its (presumed) implications for policy. It seems to be that the GOP as whole, being more of an ordered top down ship than the dems (who are historically all over the place), has shifted toward more extreme positions on climate science in response. That process is also purging the party of that moderate pro-science contingent that has always existed previously. Even strongly conservative scientists like Emmanuel are now being disenfranchised. There has been a deliberate attempt to caste science related to policy in a purely political light, so as to discredit the science. It will be a real problem for the GOP in the end, and maybe for all of us, depending on how long this trend lasts. Nature will do what it does regardless of the debate. You claim projections vary widely, and they do for very real reasons, that is actually a worrying thing -- things could be worse than we expect! Even the low end of IPCC projections would present sizable challenges. As AT and mc point out, stalemate on the issue of whether AGW is occuring is not a neutral stance. It effectively represents a decision to not believe the evidence for climate change, and not to accept the sizeable risks associated therewith. -
John Hartz at 07:40 AM on 26 August 2011Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
On the bad news front... "The State Department will remove a major roadblock to construction of a massive oil pipeline stretching from Canada to Texas when it releases its final environmental assessment of the project as soon as Friday, according to sources briefed on the process." Source: "State Department review to find pipeline impact ‘limited,’ sources say," Washington Post, Aug 24, 2011 To access the complete article, click here. -
scaddenp at 07:28 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Since global warming theory tends to favor El Nino conditions, the occurrance of the strong La Nina runs counter-intuitive.. Unless there is new publications I am unaware of, this statement is not correct. Please reference if you do. The effect of GW on ENSO as far as I know is very much unsettled science, with different models giving different results. Expansion of the Hadley cells could give more La Nina conditions (just a lot hotter than previous El Ninos). What does appear to be robust, is that amplitude of ENSO variation will increase. -
LorenCobb at 07:10 AM on 26 August 2011OA not OK part 19: SUMMARY 1/2
I like what you are doing with this point-by-point summary, but I have a serious suggestion concerning the STYLE of the writing. Please remember that the most important readers of your material are folks in the Denial camp, or tending in that direction, who are visiting in order to see what arguments are currently being made. I suspect that they may not be amused or in any way attracted by the cutesy titles (e.g. "The f-word: pH") that you have given these points. This is at heart a political argument, and these readers may already be extremely angry about what they see as scientific fraud and meddling in important public affairs. Humor, especially of this kind, can be misinterpreted as condescension, ridicule, and worse. I think it would be best to keep everything sober and as plainly stated as possible. Thanks! -
Composer99 at 07:10 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
I have replied to EtR's final comment on Texas weather on the thread I suggested earlier. -
Composer99 at 07:06 AM on 26 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
I am going to respond on this thread to a comment by Eric the Red on the Republican Candidates vs Climate Science thread. Eric the Red: Your suggestion "Since global warming theory tends to favor El Nino conditions, the occurrance of the strong La Nina runs counter-intuitive" is, to the best of my understanding, simply false. Climate change does not favour any one state of ENSO except insofar as it affects the Pacific ocean currents which drive ENSO. Do you have a cite to scientific literature supporting your claim? -
scaddenp at 07:05 AM on 26 August 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
I should also add, that I dont back any particular solution. I have every confidence that market would find good solutions if building new coal generation was banned. However, no technological solution is going anywhere while coal is cheaper (are you happy with subsidies?). I am not seeing right-wing skeptics stepping up to the plate to answer this one. Does this mean they simply cant, so resort to denial instead? -
muoncounter at 06:48 AM on 26 August 2011Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science
EtR#53: Please identify the middle-ground politicians on the Republican side. Is Huntsman the one and only (and does he stand a chance?) How are any of the others' stances on climate change based on science? And the issue is cut and dry; either we do something or we do not. Postponement and 'we don't know' equates to doing nothing. It's as cut and dry as that. BTW, the post needs to be updated with Romney's latest: “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that but I think that it is,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” “What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to.” Better do it quick, because his campaign might not last that long. Corporations are people. So is Soylent Green.
Prev 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 Next
