Recent Comments

Prev  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  1567  1568  1569  1570  1571  Next

Comments 78151 to 78200:

78151. 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?
78152. 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?
78153. 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:
78154. 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."
78155. 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.
78156. 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.
78157. 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.
78158. 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.'
78159. 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
78160. 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?
78161. 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?
78162. 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.
78163. 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.

78164. 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.
78165. 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....
78166. 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.
78167. 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.
78168. 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.
78169. 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.
78170. 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.'
78171. 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.
78172. 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).
78173. 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.
78174. 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...
78175. 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.
78176. Tom Curtis at 12:26 PM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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.
78177. KR at 12:13 PM on 3 August 2011
       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.
78178. KR at 12:08 PM on 3 August 2011
       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.
78179. DSL at 11:33 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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.
78180. dhogaza at 11:29 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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 ...
78181. dhogaza at 11:27 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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 ...
78182. Berényi Péter at 11:23 AM on 3 August 2011
       Ocean 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
78183. scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 3 August 2011
       Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
       Depends on what hypothesis you are testing. For climate purposes, a period covers the full solar cycle would be necessary.
78184. Camburn at 11:09 AM on 3 August 2011
       Ocean 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.
78185. Berényi Péter at 10:35 AM on 3 August 2011
       Ocean 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?
78186. Stevo at 10:19 AM on 3 August 2011
       Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
       Thanks Dana. I now feel safe to conclude that Spencer equals bad science.
78187. dana1981 at 10:00 AM on 3 August 2011
       Spencer'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.
78188. muoncounter at 09:50 AM on 3 August 2011
       Earth'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.
78189. Stevo at 09:48 AM on 3 August 2011
       Spencer'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?
78190. Dale at 09:13 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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.
       
78191. Rob Honeycutt at 09:07 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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.

78192. scaddenp at 09:06 AM on 3 August 2011
       Rising 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?
78193. Doug Mackie at 09:06 AM on 3 August 2011
       OA 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).
78194. Rob Honeycutt at 08:55 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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.
78195. Albatross at 07:54 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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.
78196. Bob Lacatena at 07:53 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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).
78197. Albatross at 07:49 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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.
78198. KR at 07:37 AM on 3 August 2011
       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.
78199. Dale at 07:23 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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.
78200. funglestrumpet at 07:05 AM on 3 August 2011
       Just 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?

Prev  1556  1557  1558  1559  1560  1561  1562  1563  1564  1565  1566  1567  1568  1569  1570  1571  Next