Recent Comments

Prev  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  1567  1568  Next

Comments 78001 to 78050:

78001. Eric (skeptic) at 03:15 AM on 4 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom, thank you. FTR, I do not claim zero increase. For example, extreme rainfall disasters should be increasing with AGW.
78002. dana1981 at 03:10 AM on 4 August 2011
       Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
       cynicus - their projection is in the paper. Roughly 1°C warming between 2000 and 2100, as I recall. I just didn't include it in the post because a model which can't hindcast also can't forecast. It's a worthless prediction. But they do predict warming - just relatively slow warming (relative to real climate models).
78003. Albatross at 03:07 AM on 4 August 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Ken @124, You are stating the obvious, I have crunched the numbers too. You sadly continue to fail to see the problem. Ken laments "where did BP claim that 3.1mm/yr applied for the whole period 2005-2010?" Really that is your defense? I see. Allow me to quote from the OP. From the opening paragraph of the OP: "A recent paper Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) put the kibosh on ocean cooling claims. They find that from 2005 to 2010 the global oceans (10 to 1500 metres down) have continued to warm" From Fig.1: "Revised estimate of global ocean heat content (10-1500 mtrs deep) for 2005-2010" From Fig.2: "Method validation using gridded altimeter SSH measurements (AVISO): gridded SSH during 2005–2010 has been subsampled to the Argo profile position and the simple box averaging method has been applied." Also: "For the 2005-2010 period the error uncertainty is plus/minus 0.1 watt per square metre." From the Concluding paragraph: "Over the period 2005-2010 the oceans (10-1500 meters down) have warmed 0.55 watts per square meter, but error uncertainty is almost 20%." So if all else fails try to plead ignorance and dismiss context. "Skeptics" are admitting to not looking at the means for the 2005-2010 when that is what one should be doing in the context of the OP. And even when it was blindingly very clear that others here were using data for the appropriate time window, 2005-2010, "skeptics" continued to push the incorrect data. "They will not understand, because they are not willing to." This is laughable. A classic case of projection-- and we know that BP knows what that means ;) Come on, falsely accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing is also an old 'skeptic' and debating trick. This thread demonstrates that multiple times. And interesting how "skeptics" are still giving BP free pass for claiming that current (~mid 2011) estimated contribution of GIS and Antarctica to GSL is actually a value for 2012.....
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] BP gets no more free passes.

78004. Tom Curtis at 03:05 AM on 4 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Eric (skeptic) @391, a disaster is a single event causing loss of life, significant injury or significant damage. In 2010, an Earthquake in Indiana damaging three buildings and causing a few injuries was classified as an event by Munich Re. A Major Disaster is a disaster in which at least 100 people die, or in which approx (85 + 4 * (t - 1980)) million dollars damage is done, where t = the year of the event. Clearly a hazard on the scale of the first may have passed without notice in 1950, but a hazard meeting the definition of a major disaster would not. The property value index approximately matches that of an exponential growth rate of 3% per annum, so increased property values are unlikely to have caused significant "bracket creep". An "event" is so defined that, for example, the April 22-28 and the May 20-25 Tornado outbreaks in the US in 2011 are each classified as a single event. So did the 2011 Queensland floods with a flooded effected area larger than Texas and California combined. Given this we can safely say that major catastrophes would not pass notice in any era post WW2 in the US, yet Munich Re data show a trend line for major climate related events which doubles the number of events over the last 30 years. In the meantime geophysical events have only increased by 60% over the same period. Property value bracket creep would effect both types of disasters equally, so the difference is likely to be primarily the result of a 25% increased frequency of extreme weather events relative to geophysical events with a margin of error close to the magnitude of the increase (ie, the relative increase could have been 40%, or 10% for all we know). I have not seen actual error bars put on the figure, and I doubt they could be effectively calculated given the data available. But claiming zero increase is done in the face of the evidence - not based on it.
78005. cynicus at 02:56 AM on 4 August 2011
       Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
       Dana, it might me interesting to learn what this simple model projects for the future? I wouldn't be surprised to see these septics actually being 'extreme warmists' in disguise if you drive their model 100 or 200 years in the future...
78006. Alexandre at 02:27 AM on 4 August 2011
       Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
       Badgersouth - perhaps I posted the link to Skeptical Science too conspicuously...
78007. Eric (skeptic) at 02:19 AM on 4 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       KR (389), I am waiting for a reply on what Munich Re's definition of "event" is. If I had more time I would keep looking myself. Secondly, Norman summed up the case for you in 373, namely that heat and humidity are necessary but not sufficient for some types of extreme events and an increase in heat and humidity on the whole does not mean there will be an increase in those types of extreme events. Those types include strong tornadoes, currently in a long term downtrend. Tom (387), is the event you defined there, the same as Munich Re's event shown in the chart in 378? If so, then I have the definition I asked for and withdraw my request.
78008. Tom Curtis at 02:18 AM on 4 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Camburn @388, are you seriously suggesting that storm cells that span multiple states and which generate multiple tornadoes might just have not been noticed in 1950? Where Americans all blind and deaf in the 1950's that you wish to argue this as a credible possibility?
78009. Berényi Péter at 02:11 AM on 4 August 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       #124 Ken Lambert at 23:38 PM on 3 August, 2011 Again Albatross Dear Ken, let them alone, please. They will not understand, because they are not willing to. ( -Moderation Complaints Snipped- ). Suffice it to say high and accelerating rate of mass addition to ocean (like land based ice melt and groundwater depletion^*) is inconsistent with much thermosteric expansion if eustatic sea level change is (sub)linear. Also worth noting, that it is not heat accumulation that melts ice, but (local) temperature. That is so, because very small amount of heat is needed to melt ice compared to warming seawater (because volume of oceans is a bit larger than global ice volume and also because mass addition is much more efficient in raising sea level than expansion driven by heat accumulation). Therefore rate of ice loss (or gain) is only dependent on the details of heat distribution in the climate system, not on changes in its absolute heat content. ^* "We estimate the contribution of groundwater depletion to sea level rise to be 0.8 (±0.1) mm a⁻¹", see Wada 2010. Needless to say it is also accelerating.
       Response:

       [DB] "very small amount of heat is needed to melt ice compared to warming seawater"

       You are not having a good day.  From ze Wiki:

       "When ice melts, it absorbs as much energy as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C."

       You also left out this bit from the conclusions of Wada 2010:

       "However, it is also mentioned that uncertainty is large and that the positive contribution of groundwater depletion may be offset by impoundment in reservoirs and associated recharge of surrounding aquifers. For this reason, anthropogenic contributions to sea level rise are not quantified in Fourth Assessment Report, although they are mentioned as the possible cause for the discrepancy between observed sea?level rise and the sum of the known sources [Church et al., 2001]"

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

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

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

78010. KR at 01:56 AM on 4 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Eric (skeptic) - I have to agree with what Tom Curtis said. Why are you continuing to beat a dead horse? Extreme weather is increasing, and it's not just increases in reporting or population density.
78011. dana1981 at 01:54 AM on 4 August 2011
       Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
       Adam C - not at all. Another commenter (I forget who) referred to this sort of argument as "climastrology", I believe. When no physical mechanism is identified, it is indeed more like astrology. Tom - thanks.
78012. Tom Curtis at 01:51 AM on 4 August 2011
       Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
       Well done Dana. An exceptionally clear and detailed dissection of Loehle and Scafetta's nonsense.
78013. dana1981 at 01:51 AM on 4 August 2011
       Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
       Alexandre - I've never seen a prediction from Spencer (or Christy) that we could put to the test. If you can find one, I'd be more than happy to do a post on it. "Skeptics" tend not to put their money where their mouths are. They like to criticize others without making predictions themselves. We had to reconstruct a 'prediction' from Lindzen based on his previous comments (see Lindzen vs. Hansen) because even though he's researched the climate for 40 years, he's never made a concrete prediction either. Badger - Braswell is a colleague of Spencer at UAH.
78014. Adam C at 01:48 AM on 4 August 2011
       Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
       Would it be outside the bounds of the Comments Policy to observe that the use of "astronomical cycles" seems more like astrology than astronomy?
       Response:

       [DB] Hence the arise of the scientific term "climastrology"...

78015. John Hartz at 01:47 AM on 4 August 2011
       Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
       @Alexandre #1: Perhaps you were too polite?
78016. Alexandre at 01:45 AM on 4 August 2011
       Loehle and Scafetta Play Spencer's Curve Fitting Game
       I have posted a comment at Spencer's blog this morning. I politely pointed out that Spencer's models had poor agreement with periods outside the calibration one (I assume that's standard validation procedure). OTOH, mainstream climate models are able to make consistent projections. I asked what would be his response to that. Unfortunately, my post got censored. I wonder why.
78017. dana1981 at 01:45 AM on 4 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       In this case, having the science on our side is actually a detriment. When a scientist becomes an advocate, he tends to lose credibility in the scientific arena. There was one climate scientist I recently asked to do a guest post on SkS - he said even though he liked our site, we had "taken a side" in the debate, and he wanted to remain impartial, so he declined the offer. Basically he was afraid of being seen as more of an advocate than a scientist. "Skeptics", on the other hand, don't worry about appearing impartial. They can make politically-tinged arguments, and since "skepticism" tends to be politically-based, they don't lose any credibility. Even Spencer has made very political statements, and hasn't lost any standing amongst "skeptics". Can you imagine the reaction if James Hansen said his job was to increase the role of government? It would have been on every blog, every newspaper, "skeptics" would have called for his resignation, etc. Spencer says his job is to minimize the role of government, and there are no consequences, other than losing credibility with scientists and others who already didn't think very highly of him. The problem is that it's science vs. politics/ideology, and it's easier to sway people with the latter. Regarding the Union of Concerned Scientists, it's an excellent group. We've collaborated with them in the past, for example in responding to "skeptic" testimony before US Congress in real time. I think they're already doing just about everything they can on the climate front.
78018. Camburn at 01:37 AM on 4 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Tom: Some of your assertions require a bit of question. You state in item 4 that storms with multiple tornados would not have been missed in 1950. The tech to observe said multiples was not here in 1950. On this whole issue I am going to have to go with NOAA climate slueths, who find that there is no discernable trend at this time.
       Response:

       [DB] "I am going to have to go with NOAA climate slueths, who find that there is no discernable trend at this time"

       You'll need to furnish a supportive link for that claim, given the extensive corroborating evidence Tom has already provided in this thread.

78019. Tom Curtis at 01:32 AM on 4 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       KR @386, I have been all over the Munich Re data and all its permutations with Norman, both on the Linking extreme weather and global warming thread, and earlier on this thread. We covered every permutation on the data and established that: 1) The increased number of climate related extreme events relative to geophysical extreme events survives when the events are filtered for magnitude. 2) The increased number of climate related extreme events also occurred in long, densely inhabited regions such as Germany. 3) That geophysical and climate related events are not significantly different in the way the likelihood of damage changes with increase population densities. 4) That Major events are not single thunderstorms (or the equivalent) but a single weather system, possibly containing multiple supercells and tens of tornadoes, something no more likely to be missed in 1950 than now. 5) That Major events are classified as events that cause deaths or a time variant level of property damage, where that level of property damage increases faster than GDP so that increased wealth is unlikely to have caused in increase of reporting. 6) Indeed, on the contrary, improved warnings and building standards have reduced deaths and property damage and so if so the rate of reporting is as likely to have declined as increased. The clear conclusion is that there has been an increase in climate related extreme events due to global warming, although it is not certain how large that increase is. Eric(skeptic) was active in both threads where this was discussed, so he knows this as well as does anyone else. The intriguing question is why is he recycling a dead issue?
78020. John Hartz at 01:19 AM on 4 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       @muoncounter #44: A cautionary note -- Although sarcasm is a way to vent, it is not a very effective communication tool. Much better for you to have said: "Kudos to all those physics teachers who recognize quality work when they see it!"
78021. muoncounter at 00:38 AM on 4 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Badger#43: "like-minded advocacy organizations" We're veering off-topic; John C., how about compiling a list of advocacy groups and organizing a framework? A quick search shows global warming activism under the Physicians for Social Responsibility and the ABA. Of course, today is a good day: James E. Hansen, is the 2011 recipient of the Klopsteg Memorial Award from the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT). Hansen will receive the award on August 3 at the 2011 AAPT Summer Meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. The theme of the meeting will be communicating with the public about physics and Hansen's work on global climate change has been an exemplar in this area. So we know which side those radical pinko physics teachers are on!
78022. John Hartz at 00:12 AM on 4 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       @muoncounter #41: SkS ought to form partnerships with like-minded advocacy organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists to aggressively educate the media and the general public about the consequences of manmade climate change.
78023. John Hartz at 23:58 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Q. Why doesn't the mainstream media in the US devote more time and energy into covering what scientists are telling us about climate change? A. The amount of money spent by the fossil fuel industry and its allies on advertising is staggering, i.e., "Never bite the hand that feeds you."
78024. John Hartz at 23:47 PM on 3 August 2011
       Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
       Given the dearth of posts praising the Spencer and Braswell paper, the climate Denial Spin Machine must be having a hard time coiming up with talking points to defend this latest piece of Swiss cheese from Dr. Spenser. PS -- Who the heck is Braswell?
78025. KR at 23:46 PM on 3 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Eric (skeptic) - (Two links regarding exposure changes versus climate changes) From your second link: '"Nevertheless," Munich Re said, "it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change."' Your link therefore contradicts what you were (apparently???) trying to assert with it. Exposure increases are part of the increased risk factors, as has been repeatedly discussed before here - but weather related insurance events are occurring faster than (for example) tectonic events, and while it may be early to make statistical conclusions about it, extreme weather events do appear to be increasing. (Incidentally, Eric, it would have been nice if you had included some descriptive text along with the links, as anyone not familiar with the discussion would have found that completely incomprehensible. See the Comments Policy.)
78026. Ken Lambert at 23:38 PM on 3 August 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Sorry accidental post - continuing #123 2006: 877/360 = 2.4mm/yr 2007: (877+48.1)/360 = 2.57mm/yr 2008: (877+96.2)/360 = 2.7mm/yr 2009: (877+144.3)/360 = 2.84mm/yr 2010: (877+192.4)/360 = 2.97mm/yr 2011: (877+240.5)/360 = 3.1mm/yr Again Albatross - where did BP claim that 3.1mm/yr applied for the whole period 2005-2010?
78027. muoncounter at 23:35 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Sphaerica#40: "that takes money, and they need to spend money elsewhere." It doesn't need to be that elaborate. When the head of the NHC is on the nightly news, he has a bully pulpit, if only for a few seconds. What is needed is the freedom from fear of reprisal, ie, job threats. "a "consumer advocacy" group arises to collect funds, organize people, organize advertising campaigns, and execute them." What gave the tea party life was a unifying issue (the health care reform debate of last summer) and the organizing power of outside agitating groups (Americans for Prosperity and their ilk). Of course, they also have a built-in propaganda apparatus. What about the Union of Concerned Scientists? They do have a global warming 'take action' page, including sending Sean Hannity a failing report card. Can they be motivated to become more aggressive than that?
78028. Ken Lambert at 23:28 PM on 3 August 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Albatross #122 At #9 BP wrote: "I translate it for you. According to Rignot at al. rate of land based ice melt is 877+48.1(t-2006) in gigatons (where t is time in years AD). As it takes about 360 gigatons to raise sea level by 1 mm, in 2011 this rate is 3.1 mm/year." At #122 Albatross is still claiming that: "Now his graph also shows how he misled earlier, claiming that the mean contribution from ice melt to GSL for 2005-2010 was 3.1 mm/yr. Well, his very own graph shows that he did that by taking the expected rate for 2010 (~1.75 mm/yr from GIS and Antarctica, plus ~1.3 mm/yr for estimated contribution from glaciers in 2010), and claimed that that resulting rate ~3.1 mm/yr applied for all years between 2005-2010. That is he claimed that the estimated rate in 2010 was the mean rate for 2005-2010. Wrong." Where did BP claim that "the estimated rate in 2010 was the mean rate for 2005-2010."? I read through his posts and cannot find this claim. He clearly says in #9 that the 2011 rate is 3.1mm/yr by using the formula he derived from Rignot. Using that formula: 877+48.1(t-2006), the rates would be: 2006:
78029. muoncounter at 23:16 PM on 3 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Eric#384: From the GCRI report's 'methodology': Each country´s index score has been derived from a country's average ranking in all four analyses, according to the following weighting: death toll 1/6, deaths per inhabitants 1/3, absolute losses 1/6, losses per GDP 1/3. Fully 50% of this index is based on mortality and is thus independent of loss value threshold. It is, however, telling that we have to look to the insurance industry for these data. Are you simply rejecting the basic premise that extreme events are occurring more frequently? Quoting Masters: Never in my 30 years as a meteorologist have I witnessed a year like 2010--the astonishing number of weather disasters and unprecedented wild swings in Earth's atmospheric circulation were like nothing I've seen. Or that there is an obvious cause and effect? Again quoting the OP: ... in his recent post, Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."
78030. Bob Lacatena at 23:05 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       39, muoncounter,

       Why don't the folks on the Weather Channel, the National Hurricane Center, etc...?

       Because that takes money, and they need to spend money elsewhere. As an organization, promoting climate change awareness isn't in their business or designated interests. The only way this will happen, methinks, is if a "consumer advocacy" group arises to collect funds, organize people, organize advertising campaigns, and execute them. So it sort of falls to people like us to get the ball rolling. In addition to trying to explain the truth to the common man (which we can't) through science blogs, we should also be organizing and promoting, just to keep the issue at the forefront and motivate people to learn more about it... the same way beer commercials keep you thinking about beer. We need to prove democracy is alive, I think, and not just for silly, selfish tea partiers, but for something important and necessary.
78031. Eric (skeptic) at 22:53 PM on 3 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Muon, the number of events is dependent on the value (there is a threshold). I have looked in vain for the threshold, but Munich Re didn't publish their definition of "event" AFAICS.
78032. muoncounter at 22:48 PM on 3 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Eric#382: From your first source, The report ... analyzed 22 peer-reviewed disaster loss studies from the last 30 years, conducted by a variety of sources that included the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and some insurers. The studies analyzed mostly looked into losses in developed countries, in particular the U.S. -- emphasis added Reports that look at only the US would of course be biased by property value. However, the graphs I posted show number of events, not value of loss. From the report of Global Climate Risk Index: - Bangladesh, Myanmar and Honduras were the countries most affected by extreme weather events from 1990 to 2009; - All of the ten most affected countries (1990-2009) were developing countries in the low-income or lower-middle income country group; - In total, more than 650,000 people died as a direct consequence from almost 14,000 extreme weather events, and losses of more than 2.1 trillion USD (in PPP) occurred from 1990 to 2009 These are just indicators of what is already happening. Go back to the original post for the underlying cause: Hot years tend to generate more wet and dry extremes than cold years. This occurs since there is more energy available to fuel the evaporation that drives heavy rains and snows, and to make droughts hotter and drier in places where storms are avoiding.
78033. muoncounter at 22:30 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       fungle#38: "How about a global strike by all scientists" Only effective (at least in the US) when the strike cuts into the production of some popular product (or shuts down pro football). The problem is that the message is always too soft, too qualified, too tentative. Those days should be over (see the extreme weather threads); it is time to publicly attribute the increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves, droughts, flooding, storms, etc to climate change. Why don't the folks on the Weather Channel, the National Hurricane Center, etc, take every opportunity to insert a science-based climate change message into a forecast? TV is pure power; there's no means for the denialist crowd to respond with their 'no its not' version of 'four legs good, two legs bad.' Even phone calls to the stations could be met with a sternly worded 'that's what the science says.'
78034. Eric (skeptic) at 22:17 PM on 3 August 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Muon, http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2010/08/25/increased-exposures-not-climate-change-responsible-for-higher-cat-losses Reply from Munich Re: http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2010/09/27/munich-re-2010-cats-cause-18b-in-insured-losses-likely-linked-to-climate-change
78035. Alexandre at 21:14 PM on 3 August 2011
       Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
       Is there any prediction from Spencer that could be added to the Lessons from Predictions series?
78036. funglestrumpet at 18:50 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Thanks guys, at last some debate that might lead to this side of the argument actually winning the wider battle for public support. Excellent as this posting is, it will do very little to change public opinion simply because very few of the general public is going to read it. This side of the debate surely needs to change tactics if future generations are not going to suffer greatly. I am glad that my posting at 15 stirred up such a discussion. I personally do feel that, Dale’s comments not withstanding, the deliberate promotion of falsehoods that are clearly designed to counter action on this global issue need some form of sanction. Unlike Galileo being the subject of church doctrine, I did say this sort of misdemeanour should be judged in a court, thus offering the opportunity of a defence. I would love to see Spencer’s defence against the evidence that this post represents. Not only that, imagine the public exposure to the events in court and what that would do to change public opinion. All the more so if the fossil fuel industry can be shown to be implicated. We have to realise that despite the fact that 97% of climate scientists are of the view that AGW is a real and present danger, only about 30% of Americans believe in it. We simply cannot carry on with the debate as it is because it is clearly being lost, and if America does not change, no one will. Whether the sun or the earth is at the centre of the solar system is of absolutely no consequence to the vast majority of people even today, let alone in Galileo’s day. Climate Change is of very real consequence to everyone, whether they know it or not. A difference, surely? I believe this side of the fence has a moral duty to not just put forward valid science as a counter to the Spencers and Moncktons etc, but to take the fight to the opposition. ‘Needs must when the Devil drives.’ At present it feels like we are doing 90mph down a dead-end street. The trouble is that the ‘dead-end’ is literal. No matter how reluctant it might be to get involved in the wider politics of the matter, it seems to me that this side of the fence is about the only grouping capable of forcing change. Can there be any doubt that change is necessary when public opinion is still as it is despite the science? Can the debate linger on in its current form while we commit future generations to what is still, but only just, an avoidable catastrophe? I will close with a suggestion just as a thought starter, no more than that (which was the motive behind my post at 15). How about a global strike by all scientists, regardless of discipline, that feel that action is both essential and urgent?
78037. Stevo at 16:32 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Dale, a little context here please. 'Sanction' means action to prevent the intentional repeating of demonstrated falsehoods. 'Legal action' and its limits have been discusssed here before. Neither sanction nor legal action constitute persecution - else the civilised world would not tolerate laws or regulations, which are exatly the things which make the civilised world civilised. If I have to choose between being the victim or a drive-by shooting or having to wear a revolving bow tie I'll take the tie every time.
78038. Dale at 16:29 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       I'm not advocating one action or the other, but honestly IMO the ad hominum, insults, threats, legal action (and lets be honest, both sides have been guilty of it) is simply not good for science. This topic is very public and scientists resorting to this level of the playground and the media jumping all over it can only negatively impress on the average person. That's not good for science.
       Response:

       [DB] In the spirit of honesty and openess, let us all consider that the vast majority of those types of behaviour have been committed by those of politically conservative persuasion, those with little or no knowledge of the science, by those who stand to benefit politically and monetarily from a delay in action on reductions in the use of fossil fuels and by those with no moral compunctions and principles whatsoever.  And all aided and abetted by a mainstream media that long ago abandoned all semblence of impartiality in the expedient search for "ratings" (advertising dollars) and has devolved into pandering and titillating the masses.  Yes, let's not forget that.

78039. Phila at 15:29 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Dale: When poster #15 uses language such as sanction, legal action, revolving bow ties, etc, that's not only deriding those scientists but persecuting them as well. A clearly humorous comment on a blog about "revolving bow ties" counts as "persecution"? Really? Evidently, we're going to have to find a much, much stronger term for what Michael Mann has been going through. To the best of my recollection, no "skeptic" has suffered the abuse, threats and ridicule for a demonstrably bad paper that mainstream climate scientists routinely suffer for doing competent, peer-reviewed science. The pious hypersensitivity that the average "skeptic" tends to develop when confronted with substantive criticism is, frankly, kind of nauseating.
78040. KR at 15:10 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Dale - I, personally, am not calling for Spencer to be "investigated, or fired, or imprisoned". I am, however, more than willing to mock him extensively, and do my best to ensure that the public viewing the discussion is not taken in by deceptive, ideologically driven opinions such as his. Now, if there were a good way to publicly censure or identify such behavior - clown noses and bow ties, as funglestrumpet suggested - great. I wouldn't mind a simple identification of idiots. Unfortunately, the supply of idiots appears unlimited....
78041. Dale at 15:02 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       When poster #15 uses language such as sanction, legal action, revolving bow ties, etc, that's not only deriding those scientists but persecuting them as well.
78042. Dikran Marsupial at 14:51 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Dale, One thing to consider, Dr Spencer's research is entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.. Doesn't sound much like persecution to me. Scientists have to face criticism of their work from their peers, that is what peer-review is all about (both in terms of papers and grant applications). Most are able to take it on the chin and use the criticism to improve the quality of their work. Some whinge that it is unfair and that they are being persecuted; however that is not a reliable indicator that they actually are being persucuted - it could just be that they are not sufficiently self-skeptical to accept that their work is flawed.
78043. Bob Lacatena at 13:53 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       28, Dale, 1. No one is being persecuted for putting forth a different point of view. No one is calling for Spencer to be investigated, or fired, or imprisoned. That only happens on the denial side of the equation. 2. Spencer's work (not he himself) is being criticized and refuted... not because it doesn't say what others want said, but rather because it is quite simply wrong, and outrageously so. His work is so bad it should never have seen publication. I challenge you to provide a single instance where a scientist was persecuted for presenting an unpopular opinion (from the skeptic point of view... this has clearly happened to Mann, Jones and others on the AGW side). And remember to distinguish between bad science being challenged and refuted, versus the scientist himself being persecuted, whether or not his publications had any merit... although it would add credibility to your position if you could provide a paper with merit and a scientist who has suffered for his efforts.
78044. Albatross at 13:51 PM on 3 August 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       KR @120, "And, as noted by several people, you took single year rates and accelerations and assumed that they applied to every year since 2006." KR, yes, he took the estimate rate calculated for 2010 and assumed that that rate held true for each year between 2005 and 2010. To do so is very wrong. Note too how the deception continues, he now shows a figure @119 which has text very boldly stating that current contribution to GSL from GIS is (not estimated to be) 1.9 mm/yr. Well, you are not going to believe this, that is the expected value for the contribution in 2012, and we are meant to be discussing the estimated mean rate for 2005-2010 (which was, as per BP's graph and my calculations is ~1.5 mm/yr)! I do not use exclamation marks very often, but here it is warranted. Now his graph also shows how he misled earlier, claiming that the mean contribution from ice melt to GSL for 2005-2010 was 3.1 mm/yr. Well, his very own graph shows that he did that by taking the expected rate for 2010 (~1.75 mm/yr from GIS and Antarctica, plus ~1.3 mm/yr for estimated contribution from glaciers in 2010), and claimed that that resulting rate ~3.1 mm/yr applied for all years between 2005-2010. That is he claimed that the estimated rate in 2010 was the mean rate for 2005-2010. Wrong. I'm not sure whether BP's post @ 119 should be deleted b/c it is so deceptive or kept as a beautiful example of blatant, willful deception by BP. It was not smart of him to post that figure @119-- he has just shot himself in the foot. And I find it odd that at the same time using Rignot et al's data to argue his misguided case, BP suggested earlier that Rignot et al. exaggerated the contribution from GIS and Antarctica. That is, suggesting malfeasance on their part.
78045. muoncounter at 13:47 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Dale#28: "persecuting scientists" Persecuting? Giordamo Bruno was persecuted (look it up). Spencer is being criticized on scientific grounds. That is not 'persecution'. See Tom's#27 for examples of 'persecution.'
78046. Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       Dale @28, that is an excellent point of view. But as the few AGW "skeptical" scientists are not persecuted, but merely critiqued. The actual persecution all flows the other way. Having said that (and having just read Funglestrumpet @15 for the first time), no matter how convinced we are that Spencer (and others) are wrong, that is no basis for any reprisal. Even if they have left the realm of science and are not just politicking under scientific guise, there should be no threat of reprisal or harm except to their reputation. On the other hand, we should certainly be forward in making it plain what they are in fact doing is no longer science.
78047. scaddenp at 13:27 PM on 3 August 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       "I would gladly accept it." -unfortunately, it would appear that most in fact would buy on price only. Especially industry where there is sense that to do otherwise would risk competitiveness. Industry use outweighs residential use. "Please define before I comment" As detailed in this IEA Report (Translation, if you remove subsidies you will pay more for energy but you argue for less tax). "I know they happened." Sorry, but I dont see anything on those graphs to support that conclusion. You get high rates during the collapse of ice sheets but they are gone. What can give you that now? (well aside from melting of the polar ice sheets but you wont do that from natural forcings as paper I pointed you earlier shows).
78048. Dale at 13:18 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just Put the Model Down, Roy
       I want to point out that my post which was deleted above, outlined my position. My comment I originally directed to funglestrumpet was a point to say, "don't diss contrary opinion in science just because you don't agree with it". My example of Galileo was because the helicentric scientists (AGW scientists if you will) faced persecution from the majority (public) view. Basically I was saying that persecuting scientists just for putting forward a different view is bad for science.
78049. Bern at 12:38 PM on 3 August 2011
       Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
       I had a sceptic friend send the S&B paper to me last Friday. I gave him a brief rundown of Spencer's (abysmal) record on climate modelling, but was delighted to send him this rebuttal when I saw it on RealClimate. It still won't convince him, though...
78050. apiratelooksat50 at 12:26 PM on 3 August 2011
       Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
       scaddenp@83 "And does that include providing effective incentives for their development?" A resounding NO. The market will take care of that. Point being, if you offered me an equally or even closely equally cost-effective method of generating electricity to heat and cool my home and place of work that is dependable and genuinely more "friendly" to the environment, I would gladly accept it. So would most end users. "Especially removal of ALL FF subsidies?" Please define before I comment. Of course natural SL changes over 1,000's of years will be appreciable. I am sure you realize by looking at long-term history that number may go up or down. "You also keep bringing natural SL change as if this would make any appreciable difference in the scale of 1000's of years. What is your evidence for this? Specifically what natural forcing can produce global sealevel change of more than 1-2mm/yr given the planet's current configuration?" Well, I am not sure about those natural forcings. I know they happened. Just go back and look at the graphs posted at #12 of this topic. The Agricultural Revolution occurred during the middle of the sharpest rise. Human impact obviously had noting to with that, AND during that time we prospered an grew as a multitude of civilizations.

Prev  1553  1554  1555  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  1567  1568  Next