Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 Next
Comments 78051 to 78100:
-
Tom Curtis at 12:26 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
If you want to find a true "Galileo" in the modern world you should look to Michael Mann and Charles Monnett, both of whom are facing politically motivated investigations because their science did not suit somebody elses politics. In the words of that famous member of the "Galileo Movement", Christopher Monckton:"So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you. We are going to prosecute you, and we are going to lock you up."
It is extraordinarily hypocritical for deniers to be playing the Galileo card while their fellow travelers are a) calling for practicing scientist to be imprisoned; b) perverting the legal system to persecute practicing scientists c) sending death threats to practicing scientists, and all because they do not like the science. It is particularly perverse that somebody who is a member of the ill named "Galileo Movement" should be calling for scientists to be locked up for practicing their science. And the disturbing thing is that the above is the pleasant face of denialism. The less pleasant aspect in the form of Lubos Motl suggests that not only imprisonment, but mass murder may in time be the appropriate response should anyone implement genuine attempts to prevent a future climate catastrophe. He says of Breivik:"At any rate, I don't think that today, in 2011, there exists a problem in Europe that could even remotely justify the killing of dozens of this young people who attend a summer camp. Sorry but this looks unforgivable to me - unforgivable at the level of a death penalty which doesn't exist in Norway. I may speculate and I often speculate about the future in which tough decisions may have to be made to avert threats that are worse than anything we are seeing today but this mass murder didn't occur in the future. It occurred a few days ago and given this fact, it's unforgivable."
(My emphasis) Motl is well known and apparently respected within the denialist community, including among the so called "luke warmers". But that comment received no rejection nor dissociation from deniers on Motl's website; just has Monckton's calls for imprisonment are accepted amongst deniers without demurrer. -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter "#107 KR at 00:39 AM on 3 August, 2011 Rignot et al show that over 2007-2009 ice mass increased." My sincere apologies - you are quite correct, ice mass did not increase. The rate of ice mass decreased, is what I intended to say, and the rate of 2006 did not (as per your linear assumption) hold through the entire period. -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter From Von Schuckmann: "Our revised estimation ... indicates a clear increase of global ocean heat content and steric height. Uncertainty estimations due to the data handling reveal that this increase is significant during the years 2005–2010 (this does not mean, of course, that these are long term trends)." Remember, short term variations, however well established, do not override long term trends. But for the time period you discussed (albeit statistically meaningless in terms of long term trends), where you asserted negative steric increases, you are contradicted by the Von Schuckmann data of actual OHC. As for the long term trends, you have established exactly nothing, due to the statistical limitations. 3.2 mm/year is the long term trend for SLR. And, as noted by several people, you took single year rates and accelerations and assumed that they applied to every year since 2006. That's not justified, even for the short term, especially since we actually have data for those years. I believe Albatross's postings state it better than I have, however. -
DSL at 11:33 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
In addition, Dale, it's not enough to have an alternative view. Having alternative views is not the goal. If an alternative theory is presented, it must have a consistent physical model and must explain as much or more as the theory against which it is an alternative. It's not enough to simply attack the theory with the highest probability; the attacks themselves must be part of a comprehensive theory. Most (95%) attacks on AGW in the blogosphere are not backed by a comprehensive theory; they're just people saying "it's natural cycles!" with no ability or willingness to explain what they mean. If everything Monckton claimed were true, for example, the universe would be indescribable--physically inconsistent. Of the remaining 5%, most accept the physical basis for AGW but disagree with sensitivity in some way. Spencer tries hard to be in the 5%, but he often wanders into the 95%--and in bizarre ways. -
dhogaza at 11:29 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
So, Dale, in these modern times, I'd say that conservative orthodoxy as expressed by Inhofe, Monckton, Limbaugh, Fox News, and many others plays the role of "Pope". While modern science plays the role of "Galileo" ... It is, after all, Hansen who's under criminal investigation by a member of the conservative orthodoxy in Virginia. Not the likes of Spencer ... -
dhogaza at 11:27 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, galileo mostly got in trouble because he pissed off the Pope in his book in which he put forth the case of heliocentrism. The pope was pissed off for two reasons: 1. He had asked galileo to present arguments pro and con without advocating for heliocentrism. 2. He not write about the Pope's on views on the subject. Now read this from wikipedia carefully: " Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[48] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book... Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio." Bad move, that ... -
Berényi Péter at 11:23 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#107 KR at 00:39 AM on 3 August, 2011 Rignot et al show that over 2007-2009 ice mass increased. No, they do not do that. Quite the contrary, they estimate a peak loss rate for those years.
Compare it to
-
scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Depends on what hypothesis you are testing. For climate purposes, a period covers the full solar cycle would be necessary. -
Camburn at 11:09 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berenyi Peter: We all know that the six years that Von Schuckmann & Le Traon report is too short of a time frame to establish a trend that is useful. A short time frame to show anything meaningful has been debunked numerous times on this site. -
Berényi Péter at 10:35 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#110 KR at 04:17 AM on 3 August, 2011 Add to that the statistically meaningless duration of the period under discussion, and I would have to consider these arguments ill-founded in the extreme. Are you trying to tell us the 6 year long period Von Schuckmann & Le Traon have chosen for their OHC analysis is statistically meaningless? -
Stevo at 10:19 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
Thanks Dana. I now feel safe to conclude that Spencer equals bad science. -
dana1981 at 10:00 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
Stevo - Spencer would argue that the observed warming has mainly been caused by some natural effect causing cloud cover changes (he fails to identify what this effect might be). This 'natural' warming effect could cause melting ice caps and glaciers. Warming oceans and acidification cause bleaching, etc. However, there are a number of man-made warming 'fingerprints' which Spencer's and other "skeptic" alternative hypotheses generally can't explain. They tend to gloss over that fact. -
muoncounter at 09:50 AM on 3 August 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
More good news: Prehistoric glacial melting similar to concerns about Antarctica An analysis of prehistoric “Heinrich events” that happened many thousands of years ago, creating mass discharges of icebergs into the North Atlantic Ocean, make it clear that very small amounts of subsurface warming of water can trigger a rapid collapse of ice shelves. The findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provide historical evidence that warming of water by 3-4 degrees was enough to trigger these huge, episodic discharges of ice from the Laurentide Ice Sheet in what is now Canada. The results are important, researchers say, due to concerns that warmer water could cause a comparatively fast collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland, increasing the flow of ice into the ocean and raising sea levels. Yes, the past may indeed be the key to the future. A very wet future, possibly coming soon to a coastal city near you. -
Stevo at 09:48 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
As a non-scientist I've been labouring under the delusion that the practice of good science was to compare theory and speculation against measured observations. I can see that Spencer is producing models which incorporate measured data but like so many papers trying to debunk AGW how does this work attempt to explain melting polar ice caps, retreating glaciers, coral bleaching, ocean acidification and so on. I'd have thought that the myriad of warming symptoms warrant explanation rather than dismissal. Can any of you folks point out where I'm going wrong with this line of thought please? -
Dale at 09:13 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Why was my comment deleted (between the two Rob Honeycutt comments)?Response:[DB] Per the Comments Policy:
" For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get deleted. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' are usually skating on thin ice. No politics. Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments will be deleted."
Going where you went was certain to drag this thread far, far off-topic, which is about Roy Spencer's mangling of statistics and climate science. It is true indeed that his ideology colours his science, to the point of obscuring it completely. But that would be the topic of an entirely different thread.
If you wish to resubmit your comment, amended to comply with the Comments Policy, then please do so.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:07 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Barry... You know, I saw an interesting lecture on youtube about the Kitzmiller v Dover School Board case, from the scientist who was the expert witness (can't remember his name). He made the interesting comment that, in the case of ID (creationism), the ID people see evolution (in this case) as an attack on the foundations of their religion. They don't really see it as a "which science is correct" issue. In that they can rationalize whatever they want because their higher calling is to protect their religion. I think it's somewhat similar with climate change. The climate deniers see climate science as an attack on their political ideology, therefore being right or wrong is of no matter. They can justify being completely wrong because they have, what they would consider, to be a "higher calling" to protect their political position. Maybe this is just cognitive dissonance but I believe they have all got to be privately having serious doubts about their position. That's often when people become the most fierce in their position.Moderator Response:[DB] Sorry, Rob. I was restoring a comment from bbickmore which had been accidently deleted.
But I agree with you, FWIW.
-
scaddenp at 09:06 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
" In the meantime we should be working diligently on developing dependable, affordable and emission free energy sources" And does that include providing effective incentives for their development? Especially removal of ALL FF subsidies? 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? -
Doug Mackie at 09:06 AM on 3 August 2011OA not OK part 12: Christmas present
Thanks Richard, very heartening to hear you are following the series. You are of course correct and I have edited the text accordingly. As you know there is little outright denial of ocean acidification because the contrarians frankly lack the chemistry skills to even muddy the waters with misdirection. However, it seems that most laypeople consider pH to be the only relevant metric for ocean acidification. And one meme we encountered several times was deliberate or real confusion over what 'calculated' pH values mean. For example, the most widely reproduced figure we have seen on the web is from HOTS but it does a poor job of explaining that any 2 parameters can be used to derive the other parameters (limited only by goodness of the K values). And this perhaps creates the impression that 'calculated' values are simply fitted to a linear decrease equation. (This is figure 6 that I recalculated using downloaded HOTS data and Keith's SWCO2). Our statement was intended to refer only to those times when there are no 'measured' pH data. We wanted to reinforce the point that pH calculated from, say DIC and TA, is equivalent to any measured pH. (Our own group has 15 years data from seagoing spectrophotometric pH and pCO2 systems collected during regular transects from the Otago coast). -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:55 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale... Also bear in mind that in Galileo's day the church also had its "experts" that asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe. Spencer is clearly the expert asserting the position of the church (the FF industry) relative to the climate issue. -
Albatross at 07:54 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, Also, think about this: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan. Well, it is very clear that here we are dealing with the equivalent of the clown in Sagan's quote. Now to be fair to Roy, it is not a perfect analogy, as scientists are not "laughing" at Roy, but becoming increasingly frustrated by his disingenuous actions, his incredibly poor science, and his politicization of science. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:53 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
16, Dale, What is important and often ignored about Galileo was that he represented most scientists of the time. They all pretty much agreed that the earth revolved around the sun, and had for quite some time. But none of them would dare to bring it up. It was the political establishment (the Church) and the common man who refused his ideas, not other scientists. So the Galileo gambit is, seemingly, very applicable today. Except the proper analogue to Galileo are the hordes of trained and hardworking scientists that are warning you that you've got it wrong, and that climate it change is very real, and very dangerous. The woes of Galileo teach us that when people want to believe something, truth doesn't matter. It teaches us that when the science contradicts the wishes and desires of the powerful and affluent, power and affluence win over truth. And it teaches us to listen to the actual experts, not the people who pretend to know better, while explaining that the sun can't possibly be the center of the solar system, because any moron can see the way it moves across the sky. And, lastly, it teaches us how history and knowledge can be twisted to mean something very different from what actually happened (or is happening). -
Albatross at 07:49 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, This continual reference to Galileo by "skeptics" is tiresome and confused. Back then Galileo was not challenging scientists, rather he was up against the church, ideology and ignorance. So please tell me that you are not trying to say that Spencer is Galileo. You are also assuming that Spencer is correct-- he clearly is not. Also, is Lindzen like Galileo for arguing against the established science that smoking is not bad for one's health? No. You have your logic backwards. Real scientists are now arguing a similar ideology as what Galileo was faced, but that ideology is now being held by people like Lindzen and Spencer and Christy and the GOP/Tea Party etc.. "Skeptics" have had since 1842 to prove that AGW is a hoax, and they have still not succeeded. So instead they have to resort to playing all sorts of games and disingenuous tactics; games and tactics that were used by the tobacco lobby and creationists-- very effectively unfortunately because of people like you. I have to ask, are you here to defend Spencer's sub-par science? Do you honestly think that he is engaging his peers in good faith with this sort of nonsense, or that he is helping advance the science when scientists have to now use their valuable time to undo the damage done by Spencer's BS? You seem to be naively assuming that Spencer is engaging in good faith, well no, he has a very clear agenda, and has said so much on his blog. This is fabricated debate and controversy my friend, not healthy scientific debate, please don't fall for it. -
Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale - I think in this case the example of Laetrile is far more appropriate than Galileo. The Business and usual, it's not happening, it's not bad memes are quackery, and if those are the treatments, no better than placebos, the patient (climate) will simply become more ill. The Galileo gambit only holds if you are both scorned for you ideas, and you are correct. Note that these are not inherently linked. More importantly, note that the skeptics consistently fail on the latter qualification. -
Dale at 07:23 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
funglestrumpet: Galileo was arrested, tried and locked under house arrest for saying the Sun is at the centre of the solar system. Contrarian views in science is critical. The to and fro of discussion between scientists is the basic foundation of scientific advancement. If people didn't dispute the popularly held science, Earth would still be the centre of the universe, and the world would still be flat. -
funglestrumpet at 07:05 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
We as a species are in deep trouble. Peak Oil and Population Growth are going to put great strains on our way of life, especially on food production. Climate Change is only going to make matters much worse and is thus of even greater significance. If we do not act to combat it, then the very real danger is that millions, perhaps billions, are going to starve to death. In those circumstances it is surely a crime against humanity, albeit future humanity, to do anything that can be shown to be a deliberate attempt to curtail action to combat the issue. Spencer is not alone, SKS has a whole set of sections devoted to people whose work is debunked, - Christy, Lindzen, Monckton, etc - yet they continue to present their views to the knicker-wetting joy of their followers and any others that can’t see the flaws. This blog post is a call for Spencer to drop his model. Will he? I doubt it. Will Monckton stop his tomfoolery? Not likely; he enjoys the limelight far too much. He is like a juggler: entertaining, but when it comes down to it, all balls. Ditto all the other denier experts. Seeing the work of these people roundly debunked is amusing until one realises that if they get their way: ‘business as usual’, then future generations are in for a torrid time of it. Indeed, even the younger members of this generation. It is surely better for the Spencers of this world to face sanction now, rather than their reputation do so at some time in the distant future. Future generations will surely wonder why we let them off the hook they should surely be hanged upon when all the evidence was staring us in the face. And while we are at it, their sponsors should not be allowed to get away with it either. I am not trying to stifle genuine exploration of ideas, far from it. That, after all, is the way science works. But when a so-called expert continues to knowingly present falsehoods then forces other than scientific debate are in play and it becomes a political matter. If we cannot resort to legal avenues, is there any way that Spencer and his ilk can be made to wear big red noses and revolving bow-ties? The public would then treat them and their message accordingly. Politicians would still follow them, but you would expect one set of clowns to support another set, wouldn’t you? -
dana1981 at 06:56 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
Well, the Yahoo article was just a re-post of a Heartland article originally in Forbes. Re-posting anything climate-related from Forbes is a horrid idea, but Science Daily's article is their own. They didn't interview any other scientists, or metion that Spencer is a notorious "skeptic". They should know better. -
Albatross at 06:37 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
Badger, I know, not encouraging. ScienceDaily has a huge readership. I am perplexed that they would uncritically promote this shoddy paper, and state its (false) findings as fact. Have you contacted SD to let them know? Me thinks that like "Yahoo news", they have been hoodwinked. -
John Hartz at 06:25 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
ScienceDaily has treated Spencer & Braswell paper as just another peer-reviewd, published paper. This is extremely unfortunate because many people believe SienceDaily to be a credible sources of information about the lastest scientific discoveries. Kudos to Kevn Trenberth and John Fasullo for setting the record straith and for allowing SkS to re-post their most informative critique of the Spencer & Braswell paper. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:20 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
I don't know if it is too late to turn the tide, or not. I really don't think it is possible to turn the tide. Even if we eliminate all of our FF use and land altering activities, there is still good ole Mother Nature to deal with and she will continue her cycle of warming and cooling. I firmly believe that the most prudent path for addressing current perceived negative climate change issues, and possible future negative climate change issues is to use technology and innovation. We can easily address the current rate of SLR, and the anticipated increased rate over the next few decades. In the meantime we should be working diligently on developing dependable, affordable and emission free energy sources. -
muoncounter at 06:06 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
This thread does provide a fascinating look at the dynamics of the so-called skeptic argument (or debate, if you prefer). In September 2010, our two rebuttals to 'Oceans are cooling' included the following caveats: From Basic: It is a fine example of denialist spin, making several extraordinary leaps: : * that one symptom is indicative of the state of an entire malaise (e.g. not being short of breath one day means your lung cancer is cured). * that one can claim significance about a four year period when it’s too short to draw any kind of conclusion * that global warming has not been occurring on the basis of ocean temperatures alone From Intermediate: ... the most common error is focusing on a single piece of the puzzle while ignoring the big picture. The ocean cooling meme commits this error twofold. Firstly, it scrutinises 6 years worth of data while ignoring the last 40 years of ocean warming. Secondly, it hangs its hat on one particular reconstruction that shows cooling, while other results and independent analyses indicate slight warming. The arguments presented in this thread are basicaly the same as those back in September. To paraphrase: - Based on X years of data (out of X + n), we can see clearly that the trend is ... - Since P + Q doesn't add up to R, all of AGW theory is invalid ... - If I take values Y and Z, derived from an isolated set of measurements and apply them as averages for the entire ocean volume, I get YZ, which is less than W, so that ... - These measurements, Q +/- .75Q, clearly indicate that ... - Based on my experience in {fill in field of study other than climate science}, I am right and everyone else is wrong. It appears that no one took those caveats to heart. Yes, resolving the balance of ocean heat is important, but it is just one piece of a large puzzle. Conclusions drawn from a single piece of evidence must be tested against all the other pieces. If this ARGO controversy leads you to conclude unequivocally oceans are cooling, you better be able to provide answers to the following (and no doubt other) questions: What is melting sea ice? Why are sea surface temperatures rising? Why are ENSO cycles changing in a manner that suggests more energy in the system, not less? If sea level rise is not due in part to ocean warming, where is that excess water coming from? What explains rising ocean acidity? increasing evaporation? changes in salinity? Did I say 'dynamics' of these debates? If we don't learn anything from one to the next, its more like statics. A case of deja-vu all over again. -
Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Good point, mouncounter! Astronomers can also recognise the spectral fingerprint of elements in the light from distant galaxies millions or even billions of light years away, even if it is more or less redshiftet. That proves that the absorption and emission of light worked in the same way millions or billions of years ago, and that is relevant for the greenhouse effect. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:54 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
113. Albatross,Those same readers will also notice some very important signs or "tells" that reveal the bias and agenda of the "skeptics".
Such as the fact that there is not a single post on SkS or aspect of climate change that they agree with without reservation? Ocean acidification. Sea level rise. Rising ocean temperatures. Rising tropospheric temperatures. Rising surface temperatures. Extreme weather events. Melting ice. CO2 levels. CO2 facts. Physics. Models. Proxies. Climate sensitivity. Clouds. TSI. Aerosols. Mitigation. Adaptation. etc. And yet they agree with absolutely nothing, ever, over and over again. It's not true. It's inaccurate. Where it is accurate (but it's not!) the conclusions are wrong. It's biased. It's fudged. It's cherry-picked. It's just wrong. You'd think a true skeptic would agree with some (most?) of the science, and just question or even harp on certain key points. And yet what we see, instead, from skeptics is hard, unyielding refutation and refusal of acceptance of each and every fact and detail of climate change. Every single one, without fail. That's the real "tell." -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:52 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
EtR at 78 and muon at 77 Interesting article. It does create a conundrum. I am not sure how the DCs are supposed to invest their money in helping the LDCs defend against climate change. One thing is for sure - we can't improve their quality of life by supplying them with electricity because that will supposedly lead to faster warming and faster SLR. They are also need to give up their jobs that depend on local marine resources. Now, I am a huge supporter of properly managing our natural resources, but what are these people going to do? Does that mean that basically we take wealth from the polluting DCs and give it to the LDCs to keep them up in their current modes so they don't contribute to further global warming? -
Albatross at 05:44 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Sphaerica @112, Yes. That was a poor choice of words, of course, they can claim whatever they want, that is how they play this game. As I have said before, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Moreover, by allowing bias and opinion to trump facts they are entitled (actually destined) to be very wrong.... You say "That their own position and analysis is not remotely tenable, and yet they accord it a higher level of confidence than published scientific studies, is a fact." Agreed. You say "At best, they totally confuse people who are already confused, and looking for edification, so that they leave thinking science and scientists don't actually know anything." Actually, I am confidant that informed and reasonable people reading this thread will see right though their charade. Those same readers will also notice some very important signs or "tells" that reveal the bias and agenda of the "skeptics". -
muoncounter at 05:33 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Yes, its OT, but let's put this to rest. Once again, to the Google machine. Note I included .mil in the search phrase. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS -- their all caps, not mine. On March 30-31, 2007, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS) held a colloquium on “Global Climate Change: National Security Implications.” The 2-day event took place in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and was well-attended by both academics and members of the U.S. Government and the Armed Forces. FYI, SSI is a division of the US Army War College, Carlisle, PA Of course, the Army Corps of Engineers builds floodwalls and that's more to the point of SLR. But did you know that new budget proposals in our right-tilted House of Reps would prevent the CoE from including climate change adaptation in their planning? How's that going to work with 'we must adapt'? -
Bob Lacatena at 05:29 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
108, AlbatrossOne cannot claim without any amount of confidence that there is a "contradiction". And one cannot, based on these data, claim like Pielke Snr or Knox and Douglass or Monckton or our resident "skeptics" that the "oceans have been cooling".
I have to disagree. They certainly can claim it, apparently, as they have proven thread after thread. BP provides a lengthy gish gallop of numbers and facts and conclusions. Points of contention or inaccuracy are ignored or dismissed out of hand. Ken and Eric pile on, cheerleading from the sidelines and adding their unwavering support. The complete lack of skepticism or critical inquiry from them is itself enlightening, but none-the-less, by bombarding the thread with post after misleading but mutually supportive post, they accomplish at a minimum allowing any I-want-to-be-a-denier pals to look at this and say the OP is wrong. At best, they totally confuse people who are already confused, and looking for edification, so that they leave thinking science and scientists don't actually know anything. That their points have been repeatedly and roundly refuted is of no matter. They just ignore the refutations and move ahead by saying black is white. That their own position and analysis is not remotely tenable, and yet they accord it a higher level of confidence than published scientific studies, is a fact. The sorry truth is that they can claim anything they want, and they can make it look not only palatable but substantive, simply by throwing around numbers and equations and citations. Between the three of them, they create quite a formidable tag team. Too bad they are (a) grossly wrong, (b) as skeptical as the first caveman to declare fire and the wheel a complete waste of time, and (c) so focused on a single, desired conclusion that they cannot admit to even one of their errors (except misspelling Rignot's name) let alone all of them. No, I'm sorry, theyclaim anything they want. They just can't be right about it, but it seems they don't have to be. -
Albatross at 05:21 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Eric @109, "The difference is that you are using Hansen's numbers, not Rignot's" For goodness' sakes, this is getting silly. I and Hansen et al. (2011) did incorporate Rignot's data. Read Hansen et al. (2011), they reference Rignot et al. (2011) and say that: "The "high" estimates in Fig. 18 for Greenland and Antarctica, respectively, 281 and 176 Gt/year (360 Gt = 1 mm sea level), are from Velicogna (2009). A recent analysis (Rignot et al., 2011) compares surface mass budget studies and the gravity method, finding support for the high estimates of Velicogna (2009)." Using the data for 2006 in Rignot et al. (2011) you get an singular contribution to GSL for 2006 from ice melt of ~2.4 mm (~+1.3 mm from GIS and Antarctica and ~+1.1 mm from other sources). So the Rignot et al. value for 2006 (an extreme year for ice loss from Antarctica and GIS) represents the upper limit used by Hansen et al. (2011). Hansen et al. did not allow for the impact on the mean contribution arsing from a linear increase in ice melt between 2005 and 2010, but that increases the mean contribution for 2005-2010 from ~+2.4 to ~+2.6 mm, the increases is well within the margin of error. I do agree, however, that Rignot's values are probably too high, as suggested by Wu et al. (2010) and Zwally and Giovinetto (2011). On that note, it is unfortunate that "skeptics" here have accused Rignot et al. of purposefully inflating the ice loss-- that accusation is nonsense and still has not been rescinded and an apology issued. Why must 'skeptics' repeatedly engage in innuendo and accuse scientists of fudging/exaggerating/inflating the data? That is all the more bizarre when it is in fact the 'skeptics' who are doing just that. The point though is that two published papers show the mean steric contribution for 2005-2010 to be near +0.5 mm/yr., and "skeptics" here have had to employ some interesting data manipulation and cherry-picking to try and force a negative steric contribution. So Eric, you too are now arguing in circles, and are also guilty of not paying attention nor listening. This is beginning to sound more like denial on the part of you, BP and Ken rather than true skepticism. PS: The radar altimeter data used by Zwally and Giovinetto are known to significantly underestimate the loss of ice from around ice margins, also their analysis excludes ice loss from the Antarctic Peninsula. Their paper is by no means the last word on this. Again, hopefully Cryosat2 will shed some light on what is happening. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:12 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
DB at 76 The Lt. Col. in the Army is hardly rank and file. He has a top secret security clearance, reports directly to a 4 star General, and is the G4 at Fort Jackson. The US Army may well have contingency plans for sea level rise as it pertains to national security. I really don't know and don't claim to know. I'm just saying that a high ranking officer has neither been briefed nor seen any documents on SLR or Global Warming related security issues. The Army has contingency plans for just about everything. One of their main concerns right now is what to in the event of an EMP.Response:[DB] We are seriously OT here. And yes, your friend, despite his level, position, clearance, etc, is hardly in a "need-to-know" position as a warrior in the field. And that is no slam on him.
FWIW, I carried a Sec Clear well above the TS level in my time with the DoD and much dialogue went on "above my pay grade", even though serving on the nation's Crisis Support team for more than a decade.
-
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross - I agree wholeheartedly with your post. In this discussion 'skeptics' have taken rates from singular, rather outlier years, incorrectly applied those extreme rates to the 5 period under discussion (cherry-picking), and used these completely off numbers to claim both a 'contradiction' and that the oceans are cooling. Add to that the statistically meaningless duration of the period under discussion, and I would have to consider these arguments ill-founded in the extreme. Definitely cases of confirmation bias, if those presenting them have not bothered to look at the difference between a single year rate and average rate over this time period. I sincerely hope that mistake was not intentional. Ken Lambert, Berényi Péter - bad arguments, no donuts. -
Eric the Red at 04:17 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross, The difference is that you are using Hansen's numbers, not Rignot's. If you were to use the values from Rignot, then you would get 2.0 - 3.4 mm/yr averaged over the 2005-2010 period. This equates to your total of Hansen plus steric. While there is enough uncertainty in these values to preclude making definitive statements, the appearance is that Rignot's values are too high. You seem to agree, otherwise you would not be continuously espousing Hansen's figures. Yes? The following paper was published recently, and also discussed in the 7/22 edition of Science magazine. http://www.springerlink.com/content/9k58637p80534284/ -
RichardFeely at 04:15 AM on 3 August 2011OA not OK part 12: Christmas present
I have been following your excellent posts on ocean acidification. Thanks so much for making this available to everyone. One point in your latest post I would qualify a bit further. You stated that...."For example, at some data collection buoys moored in the open ocean, it is easiest to have instruments that measure total dissolved inorganic carbon and the partial pressure of CO2. pH and alkalinity can then be calculated." It is my understanding that most buoys that measure ocean acidification parameters usually measure pH and pCO2 (see our website at: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/). Sensors for measuring total dissolved inorganic carbon and total alkalinity are still considered to be experimental and only have been recently tested on some moorings. I look forward to your next post! Keep up the great work. Best regards, Richard Feely -
muoncounter at 03:33 AM on 3 August 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
thingadonta#33: "Hansen and Sato with one statement seek to sweep this history aside." Hardly. Uniformitarianism is about consistency of process. The 'present is the key to the past' because the physical laws we see operating today also worked in the past. From the University of Oregon, Uniformitarianism posits that natural agents now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity through immensely long periods of time. There is nothing intrinsically special about the 'present.' Thus what we can take from the paleo record must be a result of the same processes, which will also operate into the forseeable future. James Hutton 1788: ... the progress of things upon this globe, that is, the course of nature, cannot be limited by time, which must proceed in a continual succession. A good example are floods on the scale of the Missoula Flood. Today's streams do not carry the requisite volume of water and types of sediment. We infer that unusually large volumes of water were involved and must find a source for that water (in this case, a glacial lake). Should those same conditions arise in the future, we would expect the same events. If you pond enough water behind some temporary dam, when the dam breaks, you'll get one heck of a flood (or if you melt enough ice, you'll get one heck of a sea level rise, for that matter). -
Albatross at 02:53 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
All, Well, Ken @106 that is I guess about as close as we can expect you to come to admitting error. Eric, your 2.9 mm/yr is still too high, that is the value for 2010 using a 2005 start, it is not the mean value for the 2005-2010 window, and that is what we need to calculate to compare with the other mean values for that period. That is like using the observed GSL change from the satellites in 2010 and saying that that value represents the mean rate of rise for the 2005-2010 window. That is not correct. It is falling on deaf ears, but FWIW I'll say it again-- we are working with noisy data (i.e., relatively large error bars) for a short period of time. Now the "skeptics" are not considering the possible ranges of data during this period (say the 90-95% confidence intervals). I'll repeat here what I wrote up thread @64 (source Fig. 18 in Hansen et al. (2011): "Here are the relative contributions for the 2005-2010 period: Ice melt: +1.27 to +2.4 mm/yr Abyssal oceans and southern oceans: +0.156 mm/yr Steric rise: +0.55 to +0.83 mm/yr Total: +2.0 mm/yr to +3.4 mm/yr (mean near +2.7 mm/yr). Now, satellite GSL increase for the same period was +1.4 to +3.0 mm/yr (mean +2.2 mm/yr), data from Leuliette and Willis (2011). Pretty good agreement given the limitations of the observations." Notice the positive values and range for steric, and that Leuliette and Willis (2011) also get a mean positive steric contribution of +0.5 mm/yr for January 2005 through September 2010, and Von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) estimate a positive steric contribution for 2005-2010 of +0.69 ±0.14 mm/yr. Notice too that the mean increase in the satellite GSL for the 2005-2010 window was most likely between +1.4 and +3.0 mm/yr, compared to +2.0 to +3.4 mm/yr for steric + ice melt. There is a huge amount of overlap. One cannot claim without any amount of confidence that there is a "contradiction". And one cannot, based on these data, claim like Pielke Snr or Knox and Douglass or Monckton or our resident "skeptics" that the "oceans have been cooling". Regardless, it is a moot point, because as I keep noting (which is also falling on deaf ears) Katsman and Voldenborgh (2011) have shown that slowdowns (or even periods of cooling) are not fairly common in the OHC data. Again, we have "skeptics" making a lot of noise about the noise, and worse yet making misguided extrapolations and assertions about the alleged implications and meaning of said noise. It is called muddying the waters, obfuscating, detracting attention away from AGW-- techniques that "skeptics" use all the time. Why? Because that is all they can do in this point in the game. PS: Does anyone know if there is a published paper out there that states the estimated annual loss by year from GIS, Antarctica? PPS: Hopefully there is sufficient period of overlap between the aging GRACE mission and the new CRYOSAT2 mission that will allow scientists to improve their estimates of ice loss. -
Mark Harrigan at 01:20 AM on 3 August 2011Climate Solutions by dana1981
@ actually thoughtful #109. Been away for a bit so apologies for not earlier reply. Look - I think we are "on the same side" so to speak but I really don't think I have properly got across my point to you. I am NOT falling for the "It can't be done" denial. I think it CAN be done and I hope it will be. Wishful thinking statements like "But can we say that we can achieve 50% reduction by 2050 with current and near-term technology? Absolutely! Thus we CAN solve climate change, we only lack the will." are great but they need to be backed up by evidence and practicality. We need realism or those that oppose any solution will jump to the attack. If you read my other posts on other threads you will see, for example, I have advocated trying experiments with Diesendorfs suggestions for base load renewables, using intelligent anemometry with wind to predict when local sites will drop off and reduce the need to have gas turbine already running. Diesendorf's is a plan that tries to address the current shortcoming of renewables - but it's probably a plan that needs some work. What I am saying is that too many (you included) are guilty of overhyping the (current) ability of renewables to deliver without the evidence to back you up. We've got to stop pretending that the answers are already available. They are not. I agree the trajectory is positive and I agree we should be doing whatever is (reasonably) achievable to get there (by reasonable I mean not impoverishing our economy in the short run). In the long run a measured approach means we will be a lot better off. But I think it is a mistake to overpromise and under-deliver - and so far that is what a lot of renewables programs have done (e.g. astronomically high cost of CO2 abated through 20% renewables target). It is also a mistake not to accept the reality that (at the moment) sources like Wind have serious drawbacks (e.g. intermittent performance and the need for serious CO2 emitting fallbacks) and Solar (as yet) has scalability and efficiency isses. When the "green" side make the sort of over the top claims (like in the Beyond Zero Emissions plan) then it actually creates a barrier to progress - as this critique shows. beyond zero critique Wishful thinking won't solve our problems. We need to confront the realities of renewables not (yet) being ready to provide the full answer and focus on what needs to be done to get them there while we put in place bridging solutions. So I am not saying "it can't be done because it hsn't been done yet". I am saying that overhyping what can be done now is a problem. As for your last comment - I would ask you to re-read my posts too please :) -
Bibliovermis at 01:10 AM on 3 August 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Nice try at dismissing the entire field of paleoclimatology with a little semantic hand waving. -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Ken Lambert - "[the oceans are] cooling not warming." Just to be clear on this, Ken - are you asserting that the ARGO network is in error, that the thermometers measuring actual temperatures are incorrect? I would think that the ongoing work on the ARGO network, network coverage, calibration and analysis was only improving, hence giving Von Schuckmann & Le Traon 2011 some weight. You have also fallen prey to the same misinterpretation as BP, in that you have assumed that ice melt has been linearly scaling up since 2006, whereas Rignot et al show that over 2007-2009 ice mass increased. In short term variability the ice melt contribution to SLR has been lower than trend over a fair bit of the last 5 years, a statistically insignificant period. I would agree with what EtR actually said - "...either the above values for SLR contribution from all glaciers are too high, or the steric component is negative". And given the uncertainties and the notable misrepresentation of ice melts, I would opine that the SLR contributions are far too high. Certainly the thermometer data from ARGO indicates that there is a positive steric contribution over that time. Your statement that "[the oceans are] cooling not warming." is quite simply unjustified by the evidence. -
Dale at 00:01 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Thanks for the response, but I think I might have worded wrongly. I wasn't talking Spencer's model specifically. Let's say I wanted to find out the Tibetan Mountain Goat Belch Effect on the climate. If I expected to see a response X between time A and time B, and a different response Y had a different delay to what I originally expected and fell in the same time period, that would in effect through off my result as effect Y is masking the result of effect X in one direction or the other? So if I expected a positive response which was masked by a higher negative response, I could in fact proclaim that the Tibetan Mountain Goat Belch Effect is negative. -
Ken Lambert at 23:56 PM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albtross #104 and ETR #105 Rignot - R I G N O T....I will do better. Was writing blind of previous posts showing the gentleman's name - forgive me M Rignot. ETR has got if pretty right. Whether land ice melt SLR is 2.6 or 2.9 or 3.1mm/yr - all of which are within the wide error bars on these measurements - they are all greater that 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4mm/yr satellite observation of global SLR. That means the steric rise is -0.2 to -0.9mm/yr (negative means contraction) which means cooling not warming. Your outrage at my defence of BP's Rignot analysis - which is probably at the high end - is therefore an exaggeration - probably contrived for the less analytical viewers in the hope of avoiding the admission that the numbers are not in favour of OHC increase - nor in fvour of AGW. -
muoncounter at 23:24 PM on 2 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
Eric#379: The point was to exclude earthquakes and volcanoes from the rising trend - because if they did not, skeptics would say 'it's earthquakes and volcanoes!' The worldwide count increased by a factor of approx 2 1/2 since 1980, population by a mere 50%. The 'insured value of the world,' whatever that means, has not made up the difference. It is only by looking at this display on its own that you can find some rationalization. That is what being a skeptic seems to mean these days - each individual data point must have something wrong with it and can be taken in isolation. However, taking all of the other evidence for climate change into account, this graphic is a straightforward answer to those who say 'it's not happening' and 'it's not bad.' -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:06 PM on 2 August 20112010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
It's worse than I realized. The Munich Re data is based on a number of sources that contain reporting coverage increases, see http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/345/302-03901_en.pdf particularly their insurance affiliates. It really means that the trend is skewed by the extent of insurance coverage along with the increases in population and insured value.
Prev 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 Next
