Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 Next
Comments 78151 to 78200:
-
Albatross at 09:07 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob @89, Yes. It may be worse than that though. As I noted earlier @84, the "skeptics" elected to start in 2006 when they should have started in 2005. Worse still, they appear to have then decided to calculate the expected contribution in 2010 (using the 2006 start and then applying the expected annual increase) and then assumed that that 2010 value (the end point value) applies to each and every year in the 2005-2010 period. The mean contribution from ice melt to GSL for 2005-2010 (allowing for increased melt) was about 2.6 mm/yr (I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I will have to double check that). So yes an error on the order of 0.5 mm/yr when the error bars are also about 0.5 mm/yr is significant. But maybe Ken is coming around. He was adamant @63 that: "so therefore steric rise must be negative (-1.1mm/yr if isostatic rebound is included)." Now he is saying @89 that: "means that steric rise is very small, negligible or negative." So perhaps he is finally getting the point. The point being that 6 years is simply too short a period to be making grand assertions that "the oceans are cooling", or the science of AGW has major inconsistencies or that the centennial-scale warming is 0.2 C. Moreover, as shown by Katsman and Voldenborgh (2011) such slowdowns (or even periods of cooling) are not fairly common. The fact the the rate heat is accumulating in the oceans may have decreased in this time is not equivalent to cooling, they are just accumulating heat at a slower pace, probably in response to the dramatic increase in aerosol loading and the prolonged solar minimum. What also makes me a little nervous with these calculations is that a zero lag is assumed, and we know that there are lags in the system. So that too complicates matters. You are correct Rob, this thread is yet another example of the tricks of the trade used by "skeptics" and those in denial about AGW. -
Rob Painting at 08:09 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
ETR - 'I agree with BP @93, in that the deep ocean cannot warm if the surface does not." The deep ocean is warming, particularly the layer between 3000-4000 mtrs deep. See Kouketsu (2011). Does that mean you agree the surface is warming? -
Rob Painting at 07:47 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KL- "Where is BP's 'colossal' error in this calculation? Ken are you serious? Look at Rignot (2011):
2006 was a year of exceptional ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica, but look at 2007-2009, ice mass increased. So how can they be contributing to total sea level rise in those years? Go back as far as you like, there is huge year-to-year variability in the surface ice mass balance.
Compare the observations to BP's calculations - he simply assumes that the ice loss that occurred in 2006 has happened every year since, and yet he was the one that referenced Rignot (2011) in the first place.
And is typical of BP, he never acknowledges his mistakes, or apologizes for slurs against actual scientific experts, but simply moves on to the next bit of nit-picking. It's a shining example of the lengths even very intelligent people, like BP, will go to in order to fool themselves.
-
pbjamm at 07:43 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob Honeycutt@5 This would be a great way to expose hypocrisy unless the contrarians chose, once again, to ignore the facts. Likely they would focus only on the flaws in *your* methods and ignore evidence of Spencer's errors. -
Andy Skuce at 07:26 AM on 2 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, everyone. I deliberately avoided discussing the merits of Ridley’s ideas about the importance of trade in human history and prehistory, although he certainly downplays the positive influence of government on human development. I would be surprised if many anthropologists and economic historians did not disagree vehemently with his ideas. The aim of my counter argument was to show that laissez-faire won’t work for the unique challenge presented by climate change, even if Ridley is correct about the past. Tony Noerpel, thanks for the link to your interesting review of Steve Keen’s book. I also enjoyed your article Ideology Versus Reality which makes similar points to those that I am trying to make in this series. I had already referenced the Bezemer (2009) article in my part three. On the subject of Ridley’s political beliefs, it’s probably an error to label him a right-winger or a conservative, especially in the context of how those terms are currently used in the USA. The following quote is his own account of his political views, taken from a recent discussion with Mark Lynas.On the topic of labels, you repeatedly call me a member of “the right”. Again, on what grounds? I am not a reactionary in the sense of not wanting social change: I make this abundantly clear throughout my book. I am not a hierarchy lover in the sense of trusting the central authority of the state: quite the opposite. I am not a conservative who defends large monopolies, public or private: I celebrate the way competition causes creative destruction that benefits the consumer against the interest of entrenched producers. I do not preach what the rich want to hear — the rich want to hear the gospel of Monbiot, that technological change is bad, that the hoi polloi should stop clogging up airports, that expensive home-grown organic food is the way to go, that big business and big civil service should be in charge. So in what sense am I on the right? I am a social and economic liberal: I believe that economic liberty leads to greater opportunities for the poor to become less poor, which is why I am in favour of it. Market liberalism and social liberalism go hand in hand in my view. Rich toffs like me have self interest in conservatism, not radical innovation.
-
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Okay, that is perhaps the best way rather than hijacking another thread. -
muoncounter at 06:58 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Stephen Baines#9: "he is supposed to be the yang to Hansen's yin ... he can spout such garbage" Unfortunately, we've been conditioned to listen to both sides and expect that somewhere in the middle lies a form of objectivity (or at least a balanced view). As Paul Krugman observed, Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” This creates pressure to move towards increasingly extreme views, so that the 'center' moves in your direction. However, this is supposed to be science, not political debating. In science, it is very possible that one side is utterly incorrect. -
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Moderator - in writing that comment, I am very conscious that I walked into political territory but it is my belief that political values are an important part of the question as to whether someone is in skeptic camp or not. Furthermore, I am trying to get some constructive engagement with right wing thinkers on alternative policies. I would plead that posts provide for such engagement be allowed through.Response:[DB] Phil, as long as the comments continue to be tangential to this thread, then go ahead and conduct them here. As long as the participants construct their comments to comply with the comments policy and keep them relevant to the topic of this thread, "Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?" then it will be allowed.
Or, if you wish, put together a specific guest post of your own geared to that and we can discuss it with John.
-
Stephen Baines at 06:20 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dean...I see... he is supposed to be the yang to Hansen's yin. And that somehow means he can spout such garbage out the yin-yang, while on the federal dime as well. -
Berényi Péter at 06:19 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
At least let me get the message through, please. Dear scaddenp, if you happen to find a public place which is [...], let me know please. We could continue the thread there. I suggest the same to you, Eric. -
Berényi Péter at 06:05 AM on 2 August 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
#457 scaddenp at 13:33 PM on 11 July, 2011 Government action is portrayed as theft of the rights of fossil fuel property holders but is their situation any different from asbestos property holders? Our knowledge of the toxicity [carbon dioxide & asbestos] has improved in both cases and the response of the industry has been rather similar. #458 Eric (skeptic) at 10:02 AM on 14 July, 2011 Note for the record, I am taking up scaddenp's offer to discuss this by email. I have replied to scaddenp 457 here, but it got deleted. On the other hand I am not willing to discuss it in private like Eric (skeptic) does, { complaints about moderation again, snipped }Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Only hostility to speech here is hostility to speech that is off-topic and/or violates the Comments policy. But you knew that already. -
bbickmore at 04:54 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob @2, I don't think Spencer knows he's wrong. My impression (and it could be wildly off) is that he has a chip on his shoulder because other scientists haven't been particularly polite about it when he's ticked them off in the past. Maybe some of their objections were even a little overblown. But instead of swallowing his pride and asking himself whether there wasn't anything useful in the criticisms (like the rest of us do when we get a bad review that isn't sugar-coated or is somewhat unfair,) he allowed himself to be embittered. Now he seems to have a vendetta against the rest of the climate science community, and it's his mission in life to find that one key piece of evidence that takes down the whole house of cards. (Which leads me to believe that he needs to read a few books on philosophy of science, as well.) -
Bibliovermis at 04:47 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP, Let's do a quick "back of the envelope" calculation. Ocean's Depth and Volume Revealed ocean volume: 1.332 billion cubic kilometers water heat capacity: 4.186 joule/gram °C 90% x 1.322 billion cubic kilometers x 1 million grams / cubic meter x 1 billion cubic meters / cubic kilometer x 4.186 joule/gram °C x 0.002 °C = 9.96 x 10^21 joules argument #122: Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m^2 means the planet is accumulating 145 x 10^20 joules per year. --- The surface is warming the deep ocean, rather the deep ocean inducing the surface to warm. The easier heat goes into the deep ocean, the slower the surface is able to warm up if it is heated. Think about it. You are simultaneously presenting contradictory arguments and dismissing entire fields of research with that hand waving. -
Dean at 04:26 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
As have been noted by a few, Spencer himself has commented upon what his scientific motives are in the context of his political struggle. -
CBDunkerson at 04:21 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Rob, while it certainly seems like they should "know they are wrong", I don't believe that many of them do. Frankly, I consider the evidence for evolution overwhelming... but Spencer disputes that too. Likewise, it seems self-evident that pure free-market capitalism is just as hopelessly flawed as pure socialism... but that doesn't prevent Spencer from ascribing to that viewpoint as well. Ditto his partner Christy. Indeed, ditto most of the 'skeptics'. So either these folks are all actively promoting views which they know are false and will lead to potential disaster... or they are deceiving themselves first and their adherents second. Self deception is a powerful force and seemingly endemic in modern society. The old saying about, 'you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts' has long since been tossed aside. On many topics there are two (or more) radically different versions of 'reality'. Personally, I consider this the single greatest problem we face. Global warming is bad... but we could deal with it if we were all living in the same universe. Spencer and most of the other 'skeptics' aren't. Having half the population believe in an array of 'facts' which are actually pure nonsense leads to self-destructive decision making. We have to work on getting everyone accepting the same reality... probably the best way to go about that is to structure things so that the consequences of believing fiction strike the person directly rather than everyone around them. For instance, if some scheme had been enacted in the 80s where avowed AGW 'skeptics' would pay lower taxes if temperature anomalies went down while AGW 'believers' would pay less if anomalies went up then I doubt there would be many 'skeptics' left by now. Yet since there haven't been any consequences to believing this nonsense they have been able to continue updating their false beliefs and still hold that it has 'just recently turned around' every time temperatures dip at all. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:21 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
I would be very interesting to use Roy's model to produce a "paper" showing extremely high climate sensitivity and publish it in the same journal this one was published. -
chris at 04:16 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
"I wonder what edification he get's out of this process?" Good question; however if he wants to get proper ocean heat transfer he really needs to put in some sort of eddy-fication! -
Berényi Péter at 04:11 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#96 Bibliovermis at 03:21 AM on 2 August, 2011 Do you realize that even a 0.1 deg C temperature increase in the 90% of the ocean that comprises the deep ocean is an immense amount of heat? Of course. But the warming we are taking about here is only 0.002°C annually, fifty times less than your 0.1°C. That's close to the accuracy/precision limit of thermometers applied by ARGO. And even if it were 0.1°C: how would it induce a more than an order of magnitude larger warming on the surface? The easier heat goes into the deep ocean, the slower the surface is able to warm up if it is heated. Think about it. -
Stephen Baines at 03:58 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Great post Barry. Seriously though, the mistakes are so simplistic (though not necessarily easy for others to see) that Spencer must be aware of them. I mean, no one would model ocean heat transfer as a purely diffusive process. I wonder what edification he get's out of this process? Is he really just so tired of trying to get things through peer review that he's just given up? Has he traded in science for applause from the madding crowds of "skeptics." -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:48 AM on 2 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Roy Spencer is not trying to do science, that much is very clear. What he's trying to do is get "science-y" sounding material propagated into the denial machine. He doesn't care if it's right. He only cares that it motivates the deniers. At this point I believe virtually ALL of the lead (faux) skeptics out there know they are wrong. They are now only engaging in ideological battles. -
Bibliovermis at 03:21 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
BP, Do you realize that even a 0.1 deg C temperature increase in the 90% of the ocean that comprises the deep ocean is an immense amount of heat? -
Berényi Péter at 02:38 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#94 Eric the Red at 01:22 AM on 2 August, 2011 I agree with BP @93, in that the deep ocean cannot warm if the surface does not. More than that. The surface may warm on average, still, temperature of the abyss is determined by the coldest patch of open water available, which is just above freezing as long as sea ice exists anywhere. Distribution of salinity may complicate the picture somewhat, but since with large scale freezing of seawater salinity of the fluid phase increases by brine exclusion, it does not make much difference. -
Just Put the Model Down, Roy
...still laughing over the "rainbow monkeys" bit. Seriously: >30 unconstrained parameters? What a pointless exercise. -
Eric the Red at 01:22 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Ken, It appears that we were in the same mind frame. Thank you for the compliment. I agree with BP @93, in that the deep ocean cannot warm if the surface does not. Any warming of ocean water will simply cause that water to rise closer to the surface, and settling at that depth which corresponds to its density. BP says this quite well. -
Berényi Péter at 00:58 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#90 Ken Lambert at 23:58 PM on 1 August, 2011 No steric rise means no heat sequestered in the oceans which as the major heat store on the planet means no warming. Personally I don't believe much heat can be sequestered in the deep ocean. That's because its temperature is regulated. Not by simple quasi-linear feedbacks, but by a true nonlinear regulator, a thermostat. At least as long as there remains some sea ice anywhere on the planet in any season. And not even the wildest projections suggest it would disappear altogether any time soon at any conceivable level of CO2 (lets say in a million years). Simply the current configuration of continents is such it can't happen at all. Sea ice, even if it is gone for the summer, winter come returns. Now, downwelling happens where seawater is densest, that is, where its temperature is just above freezing. If there is sea ice, it must happen somewhere close to the edge, where there is still open water (to make heat exchange with the atmosphere possible). Temperature of these water masses is not determined by climate, but by the physical properties of water. If climate changes, the location of downwelling can (and does) shift, but it always finds the proper place where temperature is next to freezing. It means if by some increased mechanical forcing (probably more intense winds) a bit more heat gets mixed down to the abyss, sooner or later abyssal waters get lighter than ice-cold waters at certain locations above, so they simply switch place. It does not mean heat content of the deep ocean can't fluctuate, because characteristic reaction times of the system can be quite large. Actual location of downwelling can also change, because the thermostat only requires downwelling to happen somewhere (anywhere) along the ice edge, where salinity happens to be the highest and/or cooling is most vigorous. For example under certain circumstances downwelling in the North Atlantic can shift south or cease for a while altogether (for several centuries) which can have a huge impact on the local climate of lands bordering this ocean (Europe & Norh America), but would not influence deep ocean heat content much, because if it increases, flux of downwelling integrated over the entire surface should also increase and temperature of downwelling water is strictly constrained. -
muoncounter at 00:54 AM on 2 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
EtR#75: "You may be interested in this paper" Yes, there are some interesting conclusions drawn. Forgive the lengthy quote, but it's always fun to read exactly what we've heard as skeptic arguments demolished point-by-point: Critics may argue that climate change is slow, providing ample adjustment time. However, climate change is expected to raise the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, which play a role in migrations. Critics may also argue that economic growth in LDCs will solve the problem, financing mitigation and adaptation, and reducing dependence on the environment. However, this will considerably raise their demand for energy, and with the current technology, accelerate climate change. Facing this conundrum, I propose that we take initiative early on, defending against climate change problems before they grow. This effort should focus on LDCs most vulnerable to environmental migration and conflict. For example, vulnerable LDCs could lessen their dependence on the environment for livelihood or protect certain areas against rising sea level. These programs will likely be lengthy, complex, and expensive ... Nevertheless, assuming we decide to implement this effort, who would fund it? The ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle which DCs implement at home, suggests that DCs should finance most of the effort required to defend the LDCs against the effects of climate change, as over-reliance of the DCs on fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change. -- emphases added, albeit hardly necessary -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross - Thank you, that clarifies matters a great deal. Berényi took the highest available melt estimates (and not checking whether accelerations from >5 years ago held until now), the lowest available SLR estimates (very short term, statistically unsupportable), and used those singular values to claim Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) was invalid. A reasonable approach might be to look at the high and low estimates for both melt and SLR, with uncertainties, and see how the Von Schuckmann paper estimates fell relative to those bounds. But that wouldn't have supported his argument. So - cherry picking numbers from both extrema of input/output values that contradict, possibly confirmation bias, no consideration of uncertainties or disagreements in the field - yet another BP kerfuffle, another waste of time. -
apiratelooksat50 at 00:10 AM on 2 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
DB at 73 I never stated that the US Army was not. I stated that my friend who is a Battalion Commander has never heard of any climate related security issues. So, if the Army is working on something it has not filtered down yet.Response:[DB] Speaking in generalities tends to draw unwanted attention; had you been more precise, I would not have intruded.
That said, expecting the rank-and-file to be kept "in-the-loop" by the powers-that-be is not credible.
-
Kevin C at 00:09 AM on 2 August 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
While I'm very wary of drawing any conclusion from a single paper (an error which this article suffers from particularly, in my opinion), the following paper adds another piece to the puzzle. (Whether it is in the right place is another question. Given that they claim an increasing sea ice trend, when the trend itself is barely significant, I have reservations about the statistics.) http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2011.pdf (via Ari at AGW observer) -
Ken Lambert at 00:09 AM on 2 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
ETR #89 I posted #90 at the same time as you did #89. It seems we are saying pretty much the same thing - except you probably said it better. Can you find any 'colossal' errors in BP's posts? In fact I find his contributions startling, original and well researched, and when the smoke clears from the flak BP attracts - his arguments invariably stack up. -
Kevin C at 00:06 AM on 2 August 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
While I'm very wary of drawing any conclusion from a single paper (an error which this article suffers from particularly, in my opinion), the following paper adds another piece to the puzzle. (Whether it is in the right place is another question.) http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2011.pdf (via Ari at AGW observer) -
Ken Lambert at 23:58 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Albatross, KR, Rob Painting Quoting the original Rignot et al.(2011) paper thus: "Using techniques other than GRACE and MBM, the mass loss of mountain glaciers and ice caps (GIC), includin the GIC surrounding Greenland and Antarctica, has been estimated at 402 ± 95 Gt/yr in 2006, with an acceleration of 11.8 ± 6 Gt/yr2 over the last few decades [Kaser et al., 2006; Meier et al., 2007]. Our GRACE estimates and associated errors account for the leakage from the Greenland and Antarctica GIC, and, as discussed earlier, this leakage is small. The MBM estimates completely exclude the GIC. In year 2006, the total ice sheet loss was 475 ± 158 Gt/yr(regression line in Figure 2c), which is comparable or greater than the 402 ± 95 Gt/yr estimate for the GIC. More important,the acceleration in ice sheet loss of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2 is three times larger than that for the GIC. If this trend continues, ice sheets will become the dominant contribution to sea level rise in the next decades, well in advance of model forecasts [Meehl et al., 2007]." Glacier & Ice Cap loss in 2006 is 402+/-95 Gt/yr Ice Sheet Loss in 2006 was 475+/-158 Gt/yr Total in 2006 : 877+/-253GT/yr Acceleration both respectively: 11.8 + 36.3 = 48.1Gt/yr2 BP at #9 then multiplied the acceleration by 5 years (2006-10) to give an approx extra 240Gt/yr. The total in 2010 was therefore 877 + 240 = 1117 Gt/yr. Equiv sea level rise assuming 360Gt/yr = 1mm/yr is therefore 1117/360 = 3.1mm/yr. Where is BP's 'colossal' error in this calculation? Now Rignot et al.(2011) might be an overestimate of land ice melt and these SLR estimates have wide error bars - however if satellite total SLR has slowed to about 2.3mm/yr then ice melt mass contributions in the 2-3mm/yr range (even Dr Trenberth quoted 2mm/yr in his Aug09 paper)means that steric rise is very small, negligible or negative. No steric rise means no heat sequestered in the oceans which as the major heat store on the planet means no warming. -
Eric the Red at 23:58 PM on 1 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
pirate, I appreciable the compliment. It appears that we are searching for similar problems and solutions to specific, rather than generic, issues. SLR has been an issue for mankind since we first started migrating about this planet. Some, like New Orleans and the Netherlands have adopted large engineering feats to combat this issue, while Blangladeshis moved to neighboring lands. You may be interested in this paper. http://130.238.7.16/h/heax7669/Samh%E4llets%20Geografi/Artiklar/Reuveny.pdf Never underestimate mother, mother ocean. -
Eric the Red at 23:29 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
You would not think that the Rignot (2011) paper would create such a controvery. People seem to accept part of the conclusion, but not others, even though the are connected. Everyone seems to agree that the Rignot paper claimed an ice mass loss of 475 +/- 95 Gt/yr. There appears to be disagreement about whether the ice mass loss is accelerating, and whether it is linear. If it is linear, 36 Gt / yr as shown in the plot by RP in @80, then the ice loss for 2011 would be 655 Gt, which equates to about 1.9 mm / yr of SLR. Rignot (2011) also mentioned that the contribution from mountain glaciers was 402 Gt/yr, with an accelerated rate of 12 Gt / yr. Albatross @84 showed that this values comes from Meier, et. al. (2007). That would amount to another 1.3 mm /yr of SLR. Eliminating the rounding, results in a 2011 SLR of 3.1mm / yr. As Albtatross pointed out in @84, this is at the high end. Wu found a total of 159 mm /yr from Greenland and Antarctica, which equates to 0.44 mm /yr of SLR. We clearly have a wide range of values. Since the values taken from Rignot (2011) exceed the recently measured SLR (The University of Colorado has acknowledged a deceleration recently from the 18-year trend), claims that these values overestimate the loss of glacial ice from Greenland and Antarctica appear justified. This is supported by the findings of Leuliette & Willis (2011) showing a SLR of 2.2 mm /yr. The question posed is whether Rignot (2011) contradicts the results of von Schuckmann and La Traon (2011). Clearly, both cannot be accurate, unless the SLR values are significantly low. Either Rignot's mass balance valus are too high, or his acceleration is in error, or von Schuckmann and La Traon are calculating too high of a steric component to SLR. Both of these calculations appear to much greater sources of error that the measured SLR values. Personally, I believe they are both too high, and am siding with the values presented by Leuliette & Willis (2011). -
Composer99 at 22:13 PM on 1 August 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
The link to the US Department of Commerce in point 8 of the list of inquiries clearing the scientists (Intermediate rebuttal) is now broken. -
Alan E at 21:56 PM on 1 August 2011Monckton Myth #17: Debate vs. Denniss, Part 2
Get a recognised qualified economist to formally critique Monckton's analysis for media publication. Gotta carry weight. -
Tony Noerpel at 21:49 PM on 1 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
Killian is refering to Steve Keen's "Debunking Ecnomics". Keen shows that neo-classical economics, in which Milton Friedman/ Ayn Rand free market school happens to reside, is mathematically self-inconsistent. Ecnomics does not share the rigor of the hard sciences. The book was written in 2001 and foresees the economic meltdown. The second edition should be published this fall and is double the size of the first edition. A study by Bezemer (2009) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15892/1/MPRA_paper_15892.pdf shows that only 12 economists saw the recent economic crises coming. Keen was one of the 12. I wrote this book review here http://brleader.com/?p=5068 One mistake Ridley makes is to assume corporations, the loigcal outcome of unregulated free-markets, are somehow different than governments or organized religion. A great book but wait for the second edition. Tony -
Tony O at 20:06 PM on 1 August 2011The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
"Life without state is nasty short and brutish" Thomas Hobbes Ridley's argument ignores the often missed fact that the rapid creation of wealth has occurred where there is lots of government. We undertake many transactions because we can do so with relative confidence. No government, no safety means transactions are done with considerable difficulty and so far fewer transactions will occur. Life without government: China in the thirties and Somalia today. Do we really want to negotiate dozens of tolls to travel a few miles. Do we want to spend a large proportion of our wealth on protection. Property rights do not exist in a vacuum. -
Robert Murphy at 19:38 PM on 1 August 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
#126: "No mention of green house gas emissions from volcanic sources. Why is this?" Because volcanic GHG emissions are tiny compared to other sources - about 130 to 150 times less per year than what we release burning fossil fuels, for instance.Moderator Response: Indeed. For details see "Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans." -
ashleyj722 at 18:56 PM on 1 August 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
No mention of green house gas emissions from volcanic sources. Why is this? -
scaddenp at 18:45 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Of course, it should go without saying that if BP can conceive of no data that would convince him that he was wrong, then he is in boat as poptart and should be ignored. From some posts, he seems to be motivated by an abhorrence for windmills but I suspect AGW offends his political values. If so, then it would be interesting if he would comment on my comment concerning political acceptable solutions if convinced that mitigation was cheaper -
scaddenp at 18:37 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
I asked BP what data would convince him that he was wrong which makes his choice of these parameters odd in my opinion. It would imply that these parameters are able to unequivocally show global warming whereas he denies more conventional measures. I am intrigued as to why he has picked these and also why not Argo which looks to me like the most precise instrument for global heat balance that we possess. -
Albatross at 17:13 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob, "and will he come back to apologize for slurs against Eric Rignot and co-authors, and Von Schuckmann and Le Traon." Doubtful. Also, I have yet to see a 'skeptics" or someone in denial about AGW concede an error or correct said error. But we can always hope that if they are operating in good faith and being true 'skeptics' in search of the truth, that they will do so (i.e, correct errors and apologize for slurs against scientists). -
Albatross at 17:10 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Rob @80, It may help for Berényi Péterto look at Hansen et al. (2011), specifically Fig. 18 and the accompanying text: "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). The low estimate for Greenland, 104 Gt/year, is from Wu et al. (2010). The low estimate for Antarctica, 55 Gt/year is the low end of the range -105 ± 50 Gt/year of S. Luthcke et al. (private communication, 2011). The high value for melt of glaciers and small ice caps (400 Gt/year) is the estimate of Meier et al." Also see my post @64 for a summary. The claim made here by "skeptics" for a mean annual contribution of 3.1 mm/yr from ice melt between 2005 and 2010 (the period under consideration) is simply not supported in the literature, even after allowing for acceleration. It seems that what Berényi Péter has done is to estimate rate of increase in 2011 (using a start value in 2006), and assumed that that value applies each and every year from 2005-2010. Ironically Berényi Péter repeatedly accuses Rignot et al. (2011) of overestimating the ice loss, but he in fact appears to have artificially inflated their numbers. Although Berényi Péter used all the satellite data to calculate his rate of increase, it seems that he uses the rate of increase in in 2011 (he does not provide specifics or an equation, but it looks like a quadratic fit), and that value is of course in disagreement for the mean linear rate of increase obtained by all the official agencies for the same satellite GSL dataset. What he should be doing is looking at the mean rate of increase in the satellite GSL data for 2005-2010, just as the scientists at the agencies did. Finally, Berényi Péter has failed to demonstrate that the fit he decided to use (a quadratic or whatever he used) for the satellite GSL data is indeed better fit to the data than a linear fit at statistically significant level. So at the end of the day, Berényi Péter has failed to concede that he is wrong and correct his errors (despite a few people pointing this out and trying to explain to him where he went wrong), and he has failed to refute von Shuckmann and La Traon (2011). Quelle suprise. Now I am done wasting my valuable time on BP. -
Rob Painting at 16:41 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Scaddenp - windspeed over the oceans at mid latitudes is important for vertical mixing of heat into the depths. And cloud cover over the Southern Hemisphere has increased in the last decade (consistent with the indirect effect of aerosols). It's detailed in the Hatzianastassiou (2011) paper I linked to at @57. The paper should published at the end of August (hopefully). Albatross - I'm wondering whether BP's humongous error in his calculations has dawned on him yet, and will he come back to apologize for slurs against Eric Rignot and co-authors, and Von Schuckmann and Le Traon? -
Albatross at 16:10 PM on 1 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Scaddenp @81, BP seems to be uncritically accepting the results of Paltridge et al. (2009) with regards to trends in upper-tropospheric moisture. He ought to read Dessler and Davis (2010): "In response to decadal climate fluctuations, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis is unique in showing decreases in tropical mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity as the climate warms. All of the other reanalyses show that decadal warming is accompanied by increases in mid and upper tropospheric specific humidity." But this is going horribly OT. -
Rob Painting at 16:07 PM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
Composer99 - Have you read the interview transcipt over at Joe Romm's blog?. It's a doozy. The whole thing is about the dead polar bears that Dr Monnett and his associate saw during the surveys. They spend almost 2 hours interviewing him about the 4 dead polar bears, and at the end of the interview decline to outline the details of the allegations against him. There's a couple of funny moments where the interviewers keep getting muddled up over the number of dead polar bears, trying to trip up Dr Monnett, they have a hard time grasping that 3 of the dead polars were seen in the survey area, and one was seen enroute to the survey area. Yeah, it's a witchhunt. -
Composer99 at 13:11 PM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
Out of courtesy to my source, I should like to include a link to Deltoid. -
Tom Curtis at 13:11 PM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
apirate @51, given the line of questioning in the interview between the investigators and Monnet, the real story here is: Who accussed Monnet of wrong doing? and What evidence of wrong doing did they present? I suspect the motivation for the accusation was entirely political, and that it had no evidentiary basis. Last week in Australia, Christopher Monckton said that the anti-climate science movement was "coming for" the climate scientists, and that those climate scientists were going to be "locked away". Given the politically motivated investigations into Michael Mann, and now this investigation of Monnett, it appears he meant it seriously. Climate scientists have been given clear warning that if they tell the truth about climate, the American political right intends to treat them like criminals. -
Composer99 at 13:05 PM on 1 August 2011Visions of the Arctic
Courtesy of Deltoid, I have found the link to the article by the organization PEER, which is advocating on behalf of Dr Monnett. I recommend the links provided at the bottom to documents pertaining to the case.
Prev 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 Next
