Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 Next
Comments 81701 to 81750:
-
Tom Curtis at 14:01 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Albatross @148, it is worthwhile using the controls to look at the extremes in one day precipitation as well. -
Bibliovermis at 13:57 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Andy, Controversy manufacturers will spin anything to suit their purpose. Preventing energy experts from authoring energy chapters will not quiet the muckrakers. This is another one of those contrarian contradictions. The IPCC is a purely political ploy that is politically tone-deaf... right. -
Patrick 027 at 13:47 PM on 22 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Re [DB] - thanks. -
Bern at 13:44 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
quokka: you're forgetting that the actual efficiency of use of primary energy is, in many cases, very very low, e.g. coal fired power stations rarely convert more than a third of the primary (thermal) energy into useable electricity. Burning liquid fuels in car & truck engines is even less thermally efficient - <20% for petrol(gasoline) engines, maybe as high as 40% for a well-tuned diesel. Replacing a petrol-powered car with an electric one will result in more efficient energy use, especially if you charge it with electricity that doesn't come from burning fossil fuels. And that's completely ignoring the issue of energy wastage, which is a far bigger problem (e.g. driving a 12mpg truck to your desk job, when you could be catching public transport). Many (most?) industrial users can significantly reduce energy usage with no changes to their output at all. Those that make the effort usually reap the benefits, saving tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on their energy bills (or millions, for large industries). You can hardly claim that most industries in China that produce goods for Europe & Japan have been optimised in terms of their energy use. That's not to say that rolling out energy efficiency across the entire global economy would be easy, nor cheap. But it would pay for itself quite quickly. Whether it would be enough to entirely offset growth in world economic activity, I don't know. -
Albatross at 13:42 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
People should also look the annual U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI) (with Tropical Cyclone Indicator) for 1910-2010. Note the the downward decline in CEI from 1910 to 1970, and since then an upward trend. With greatest frequency of extreme events in the first decade of the 21st Century. And it is still early days in our stupid experiment. -
Patrick 027 at 13:38 PM on 22 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
... I didn't even mention the mesosphere or thermosphere in that last part because - while their meager optical thicknesses are important to their own energy balances and in determining radiative equilibrium, they are so tiny compared to the stratosphere (as a whole, anyway) and troposphere that they barely make any difference. -
Albatross at 13:31 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman @140, "Do either of you know of any study done to determine if the number is increasing (please Albatross no models or guesses...just actual countable numbers) " Well, I'm affronted :) Stanley Chagnon is your man and Google is your friend. FWIW, I have an idea as to how we can objectively look at this, but it will use a model. -
Albatross at 13:20 PM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Ken @87, The link @80 works. Re "I went there in the early days and found that the site was far inferior to SKS, with no where near the quality of science contributions. " Empty rhetoric mate. The post at RC is written by Feulner. -
Bern at 13:14 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
David Horton: we can't just ignore it, because debate in the public sphere isn't about who is right, it's about who shouts the loudest and the longest. Disinformation like this needs to be fought by providing actual, verifiable, factually correct information. Eventually, some of the journalists covering climate change stories might start to include it themselves in their coverage (assuming their editors let them present a slightly less imbalanced viewpoint, that is!). The more the general public see that these deniers are just blowing off steam, the more they'll pay attention to what the actual scientists have to say. It'll be a long, hard road, but it's one that must be travelled. As for Monckton: yes, I hope he pulls out that swastika slide at his presentation in Perth. If he does, I think that one slide will do more for climate change science that an entire presentation by a real climate scientist... -
scaddenp at 13:06 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
camburn - all rather useless because they are not linked to what is actually predicted for those indicators and regions. The WG2 link to rivers reports on 195 rivers. It still didnt distinquish between places expected to dry versus those expected to get wetter. -
Camburn at 12:55 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
This is a good peace talking about tornados in the USA. Note from the graphs that precipable water is well within historical ranges as well as other items required to produce tornadoes. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2011/tornadoes/climatechange.html Just some papers for thought and I hope these help you in your search of knowledge. -
scaddenp at 12:51 PM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Realclimate is not trying to do same thing as Sks. However, the contributors are publishing climate scientists so the discussion there is rather more informed on the specialized areas. -
Camburn at 12:48 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
And here is one on global storm days: "However, the global total number of storm days shows no trend and only an unexpected large amplitude fluctuation driven by El Niño-Southern Oscillation and PDO. The rising temperature of about 0.5°C in the tropics so far has not yet affected the global tropical storm days. " http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL042487.shtml -
Camburn at 12:46 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman: Here is a study on hydrology that only uses stations that have at least a 50 year history so that a trend can be detected. The results of the study show that there has been no increase in hydrological events verses the long term mean. http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf -
scaddenp at 12:36 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman, is there a model which claims thunderstorms in those latitudes will increase? As far as I know, the expectations of a warming earth are increased precipitation in some regions, increased heatwaves, and increased drought in some regions. The detail of what events and at what confidence level (likely, very likely) are here. Temperature statistics on heatwaves, and river flood frequency are the most likely parameters to be available in a form reliable enough for study. -
Ken Lambert at 12:35 PM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Albatross #77 Your link to Realclimate did not work. I went there in the early days and found that the site was far inferior to SKS, with no where near the quality of science contributions. -
David Horton at 12:32 PM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
It is time that we in the real world started just ignoring this crap isn't it? I mean, someone who is so concerned about the environment that they join an environmental group mustn't be one of a number of people summarising the (accessible) work of many other people because ... well, um, because he is obviously concerned about the environment and we wouldn't want anyone like that involved in thinking about the environment ... A ten year old schoolboy of below average intelligence could see through the illogic of that and yet it is presented by a couple of people and we all run around saying oh my goodness gracious quite right, environmental concern should really play no part in our consideration of the future of the environment. Time to ignore these mendacious fools. Oh, and Monckton? A five year old of below average intelligence would think his performance about "Nazis" would be over the top in the preschool. Again let's start ignoring him. Plenty of other people will treat them seriously, like our retiring senator Mr Minchin who announced proudly this week that he might set up a "Friends of CO2" group on retirement. Laugh? I nearly died. -
Ken Lambert at 12:31 PM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Tom Curtis #76 "I am now at a complete loss to explain why you should quote the irrelevant uncertainty for absolute measurements rather than the directly relevant uncertainties for relative TSI when attempting to rebut KR #62." Because we really don't know what absolute level of TSI will produce an equilibrium condition on Earth in the absence of AG forcings. It is OK to look at relative TSI back as far as satellite measurement goes and find only the 11 year ripple - but if that average TSI was at an absolute level higher than an 'equilibrium TSI' to start with (a 20th century solar maximum for example) - then that would contribute an increasing energy input to the Earth system. -
Tom Curtis at 12:28 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman @136, following the United Nations, certain technical terms are used to define potentially harmful events. These are defined by the International Federation of Surveyors as follows:"Hazards can be single, sequential or combined in their origin and effects. Each hazard is characterized by its location, intensity, frequency and probability (UN/ISDR 2004, p. 16) and might lead to a disaster. A disaster is defined as a serious disruption of the functioning of society, causing widespread human, material or environmental losses, which exceed the ability of an affected society to cope using only its own resources (EEA 2006). The extent of the disaster depends on both the intensity of the hazard event and the degree of vulnerability of the society. For example a powerful earthquake in an unpopulated area is not a disaster, while a weak earthquake which hits an urban area with buildings not constructed to withstand earthquakes, can cause great misery (GTZ 2001, p. 14). Due to this fact, hazard events are only classed as catastrophes when human beings or their property are affected. The term natural catastrophe is used when a natural event is so intense that people suffer and material assets are affected to a substantial degree and on a more or less large scale. A “great” natural catastrophe is defined by the United Nations as a natural catastrophe that distinctly exceeds the ability of an affected region to help itself and makes supra-regional or international assistance necessary (cited in Munich Re Group 2005, p. 12). Generally this is the case when there are thousands of fatalities, when hundreds of thousands of people are made homeless, or when economic losses – depending on the economic circumstances of the country concerned – and/or insured losses reach exceptional extents."
(My highlighting) Munich Re explicitly refers to the UN definition in their discussion of Great Natural Catastrophe's from which the chart you link to is drawn. So, to make this clear, Natural Catastrophe's are hazardous natural events which adversely effect humans. They are on the increase as is shown in the chart in my 116. Indeed, that increase has continued, as newer versions of the chart show a continued rise in natural disasters with 2010 having the second highest number on record. It also shows a continued significant correlation with annual temperatures. Weather related natural disasters do not exactly correlate with weather related events because as the population increases, the probability that a weather event (hazard) will adversely effect a human increases. This increased probability is not a direct match to increasing population because most of the increase in population comes from an increase in density of population in already populated areas. Consequently for most natural hazards, the location in which they occur is almost as likely to result in harm to humans now as it was 50 years ago. There is, however, some increase in that smaller natural hazards are more likely to result in some harm now than would have been the case in the past. Counteracting that effect is the fact that improved building standards and awareness and warning of risks has reduced the risk of harm. The net effect is probably best indicated by the rise in geophysical events, which, because effectively unaffected by climate, is only a consequence of the sociological factors. The trend of increase in geophysical events shows an approximately 50% increase over the period 1980 to 2010. In contrast, the trend in meteorological events shows a 100% increase, and hydrological events shows a 200% increase. This has lead Munich Re to conclude that:"Yet it would seem that the growing number of weatherrelated catastrophes can only be explained by climate change, The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming is in keeping with current scientific findings as set out in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report."
In contrast to a plot of natural disasters, a plot of great natural disasters is a poor measure of the increase in natural hazards. This is partly because they are fewer in number, so that random factors of location can make a very great difference in the consequences of the natural hazard involved. A magnitude 9 earth quake in Antarctica would be an interesting geophysical event, and may not be more than a natural hazard. The same earthquake with a shallow epicentre under Los Angeles or San Francisco would be a very significant great natural catastrophe. Other factors effecting the risk of a great natural catastrophe include population density, relative preparedness, and the economic means of the society to handle the consequences of a natural catastrophe. The equivalent events in Australia and in Somalia may be a natural catastrophe in Australia and a great natural catastrophe in Somalia simply because Australia has, and Somalia does not have, the means to respond to the disaster. And finally, and probably redundantly by now, the graph that you link is of great natural catastrophes, which is why it shows so different a pattern. -
Norman at 12:17 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis or Albatross, Here is a NOAA article with the number of severe thunderstorms in USA a year. Number of severe thunderstorms in US a year. This article says there are around 100,000 thunderstorms in the US per year. Of those 100,000 about 10% are severe as explained by the criteria in the article. With such a large number of events per year it should be easy to see if the frequency is increasing, decreasing or staying the same over given time period (sufficient to prove if a warming planet is increasing the number of severe thunderstorms a year). With hurricanes the yearly number is fairly small and may be difficult to establish a noticeable trend but with the large number of severe thunderstorms a trend should show up much more clearly. Do either of you know of any study done to determine if the number is increasing (please Albatross no models or guesses...just actual countable numbers) -
scaddenp at 12:12 PM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Norman, looking at IPCC WG2, it would seem that IPCC largely agrees with you. At the time of publication, there were a number of indicators showing increase in extreme events, but it mostly noted that problems with record-keeping and global data sets make this a difficult exercise. -
quokka at 12:07 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
#20 Tom Curtis If you want to pursue this energy intensity argument in the EU and Japan, then the purported improvements in energy intensity must take into the account the rising embedded energy in imported goods. Do they? While there is trend in the developed world towards a greater proportion of economic activity to be in service industries eg leisure, education, health etc, that are in general less resource intensive (including energy), extrapolating this to the developing world on a scale that would reduce energy demand seems a bridge too far. With another two billion people on the planet expected by 2050 and over one and a half billion currently without electricity the potential for enormous increase in energy demand is quite plain. This does not mean that all these people will be lifted by magic out of poverty to a reasonable standard of living, but the historical trend is quite obvious and in the absence of some catastrophic event quite irreversible. It is frequently (and quite reasonably) argued that addressing climate change is about managing risk. Using dubious assumptions about worldwide energy demand being reduced by 2050 seems to me to represent extreme risk. It is far from impossible that demand could simply explode. This report suggests that world energy consumption increased by 5% in 2010. Even allowing for the effects of the GFC - Ouch! -
Norman at 11:51 AM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis @ 129 You claim "The problem here seems to be that you do not appreciate how global warming must impact in a chaotic system. Put simply the fact that the mean global surface temperature is 0.6 degrees warmer than it was a century ago impacts on every weather system. As the regional expression of that temperature increase is part of the initial conditions for every weather system on Earth, every weather system is a consequence of global warming. Note that this is a trivially true fact - it follows from the definition of "chaotic"; and it is also uninteresting. But not remembering it means you will hopelessly miss frame any search for the effects of global warming on extreme weather events." Actually I would agree with your statement... Global Warming = Climate Change. I am not questioning this postition. Here is the leap I question. Global Warming = Climate Change = Increased Frequency of Extreme weather events. Note please. I am not stating in a "denier" mentality that Climate Change is not increasing the frequency of extreme weather events. I am stating I have not been presented enough valid empirical evidence that this is indeed the case. First of all, what is an extreme weather event. Who is doing the counting? Is this an opinion? To be a valid study and scientific topic a rigorous definition of an extreme weather event is needed for accounting purposes. A record high temp or cold would obviously be an extreme weather event along with record rainfall. These would be the easy ones to document and record for a tally sheet. But what of the others? What if the temp is only one degree lower than the record? How much above normal would be considered extreme? -
Norman at 11:42 AM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
JMurphy @ 130 and 132 I have already looked at both the extreme temp links you posted. I still can't find temp records outside the US. Intellicast web site gives every major city in US historical temp data (record high and low and years they happened). Accuweather provides nice monthly anomaly graphs for any given city a few months worth. The anomaly graph has the normal high and low line along with the record high and low so one can see in a glance if temps look too high. Maybe Europe has nice web pages for temp extremes. I read through your link at 132. Here is the conclusion to the study. "There is a statistically significant increase in all disasters, and this trend is driven mainly by a rising number of floods in all regions and by more storm events in Asia and the Americas. Changes in population do not fully explain the rising number of floods, nor can the trend be entirely attributed to changes in how disasters are recorded. It was not possible to directly analyse the effect of climate change on disaster trends; however, there is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that climate change is increasing hazards and hence trends in reported disasters. This effect is unlikely to be very large, because the magnitude of climate change over the past 20-30 years is relatively small when compared with (for example) the growth in the world’s population over that time." Basically the Munch Re report can not be used to determine the frequency of extreme weather events (hazards). An EF5 tornado is only a hazard in a field with no people present. It is recorded as a disaster when it strikes a populated area. Disasters are increasing but not enough data is available to determine if hazards are increasing. -
Tom Curtis at 11:29 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
pauls @12, from my reading of the report, the scenario assumes a reduction not in demand, but in energy intensity, ie, Kilowatts used per unit GDP produced. Further, they assume a reduction in energy intensity at the same rate as is currently being achieved in the EU, and to a target level which has already been achieved in Japan. Prima facie, that is not an implausible target. -
Norman at 11:15 AM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis Why does Munch Re have two very different graphs of weather related catastrophes? Here is another one that is much different in look than your 116 post graph. Another Munch Re graph. -
Andy Skuce at 11:07 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Bibliovermis @ 29 Yes I do think that anyone working for an energy company or a political advocacy group should not be a Lead Author/Editor of a report like the SSREN (see me @ 15, above). But I recognize (as I said in my post @11) that the IPCC probably can't be/shouldn't be as picky when it comes to contributing authors, which is all the more reason to have people who are clearly unconflicted making the final decisions on content and emphasis. For what it's worth, the report would have been diminished without Teske's scenario being included. I think. However, the report would have been more convincing, especially to skeptics, if the senior authors had all been people--probably tenured academics--whose integrity and independence from any pressure from their employers could be clearly demonstrated. Basically, my objection is that the IPCC's political tone-deafness is making the contrarians' rhetorical case for them. -
Eamon at 11:03 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Dana1981@3 Lynas has not raised any substantive criticisms of the report. He's unhappy that the 77% plan phases out nuclear power, but that's neither here nor there - the plan is both technically and economically feasible. Of course phasing out nuclear power is pertinent - it's a low-carbon power source. If the scenario in the Greenpeace report doesn't pan out then all we've done is increase carbon emissions for little gain. -
quokka at 10:57 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
@dana1981 & MartinSAccording to SRREN, renewables are already developing rapidly. Of the 300 gigawatts (GW) of new electricity-generating power plants added globally from 2008 to 2009, nearly half (140 GW) came from renewable sources.
Yes, I read that too in the summary for policy makers and it is a poor and misleading representation of the true state of affairs because it does not mention capacity factor. The correct way to gauge the contributions of new renewables build is to weight the nameplate capacity by the capacity factor to determine how much of electricity that will be generated from the new build will be low emission. The picture will be far less rosy with PV nominally up to about 20% (12% in Germany) on-shore wind nominally up to 30% (reportedly 17% in Germany), hydro very much site specific but around 45% worldwide. Etc. I don't know the exact figures, but it is very unlikely that renewables would represent more than 25% of new build and quite possibly considerably less when correctly assessed. -
Roddy Campbell at 10:37 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
dana - thanks. A quick (admittedly) look at Epstein, the key quote might be: 'Climate impacts were monetized using estimates of the social cost of carbon—the valuation of the damages due to emissions of one metric ton of carbon, of $30/ton of CO2equivalent (CO2e),20 with low and high estimates of $10/ton and $100/ton. There is uncertainty around the total cost of climate change and its present value, thus uncertainty concerning the social cost of carbon derived from the total costs.' I couldn't see any great justification of either the $10 or the $100 extremities? It's an interesting subject - clearly there are externalities of coal, as there are externalities of many activities, the climate change externality must be the hardest to get a grip of - what is the external climate cost of a US coal plant etc. I see they use $7.5m for a value of a life - it's not clear, or is it, that many US lives (which determine the $7.5m value) will be lost from CO2? -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:31 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Considering how McIntyre has been trying to fool and mislead everybody for years, him accusing others of doing so is laughable. No attention should be paid to this charlatan, but, unfortunately, attention is easy to get in this World. -
michael sweet at 10:25 AM on 22 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, "The melt pool may not be significant as the sea ice extent is essential the same as last year". Last year was the lowest ever recorded. The melt pools this year appeared at the North Pole a full week before they have ever been measured before. Do you realize that the IJIS area for 2011 has been the record low of all time for the past week? It has crawled above 2010 and is now just second lowest. You appear to be arguing that since it has not set a season record minimum yet (the melt season is only beginning) that there is no problem. What would constitute a problem if being at the lowest level ever recorded for the current date is not a problem?? -
sunoba at 10:21 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Interesting post - thanks. As you mentioned, if a social cost of carbon is applied, then the cost of coal-fired electricity approaches the cost of solar-generated electricity. For estimates of the Levelised Electricity Cost with a social cost of carbon, please see real cost of coal-fired power and LEC - the accountant's view. Other posts on www.sunoba.blogspot.com deal analyse the LEC for various large solar installations. -
Roddy Campbell at 10:05 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Dana - can you give me a clue how you're costing externalities of AGW/CO2? ref your comments 5 & 7.Response:[dana1981] See Figure 1 in the post above, and also The True Cost of Coal Power
? -
dana1981 at 10:04 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
pauls - if McIntyre had limited his criticisms to the press release, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But he went a tad bit further."Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."
I'd say that's a tad bit extreme if you're only complaint is about a flawed press release. As for the selection of Teske's study, it's only logical since it was the scenario with the largest renewable penetration. That's the one I would have chosen to highlight too. -
dana1981 at 10:00 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
pauls - the Ecofys report (linked in the post above) also has energy demand lower in 2050. I think Jacobsen and Delucchi do too. It's really not that uncommon. For one thing, just switching to renewable energy increases efficiency, because fossil fuels and nuclear waste a lot of energy by continuing to run at their peak during off-peak hours. As I recall, Jacobsen and Delucchi found that switching to renewables would decrease energy needs by 30% by itself. Then you add more efficient buildings and vehicles, etc., and the Teske efficiency scenario is definitely plausible. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:46 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
pauls... You might try reading the paper and see how they come up with their numbers. Just a thought. As Dana points out, there are other groups who've done similar reports with more aggressive targets. So, it sounds to me like, once again, the IPCC is taking a conservative position on this issue. -
Bibliovermis at 09:37 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Andy S & Eric the Red, Do you think that scientists employed by petroleum companies should also be banned from being IPCC Lead Authors? Would there be any PR problems associated with that? As Dana said above, disparaging somebody work's on the basis of their associations rather than the content of the work is the pure essence of an ad hominem fallacy. No amount of kowtowing to those who manufacture controversy will stop them from doing so. -
pauls at 09:34 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
3, dana1981 - 'Lynas has not raised any substantive criticisms of the report. He's unhappy that the 77% plan phases out nuclear power, but that's neither here nor there - the plan is both technically and economically feasible.' I agree that Lynas' arguments are low on substance but I can't really see how Teske's scenario is really plausible, at least with the all the details in the report: The way they achieve 77% renewables without nuclear and CCS is to reduce the total energy demand. This is despite world population increasing to 9 billion. With all this happening they still suggest that GDP per capita can increase at the same speed as zero-mitigation scenarios. I'm certainly not an expert in economics but I can't see how this is feasible. -
pauls at 09:16 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
19, dana1981 - 'On the other hand, it clearly reveals the bias and double-standard of McIntyre and co, since Greenpeace isn't allowed to have a lead author, but a petroleum company is.' Well, McIntyre isn't actually suggesting that Greenpeace shouldn't be allowed involvement I don't think, though that is the message everyone else on his site is taking away. He's mainly leading on 'Headline of press release was misleading/ambiguous - it's unreasonable to expect journalists to read any further than that' and 'Conflict of Interest - Teske maybe involved in selecting own study as focus.' Lynas has introduced various arguments but it's clear for him the only important point is that any ties between Greenpeace and the IPCC are unacceptable. I think he has a history with them, particularly regarding nuclear power. -
John Hartz at 09:05 AM on 22 June 2011It's not happening
Let's get cracking on updating this article! -
John Hartz at 09:04 AM on 22 June 2011It's not happening
The green tab for this post needs fixing. -
Tom Curtis at 08:51 AM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
thepoodlebites @82, If a 1 degree reduction in temperatures in the LIA caused the ITCZ to migrate 500 km south, I fail to see how a prediction of a 500 km north migration for a predicted 3 degree increase in temperatures over MWP peak values is bold. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:36 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Sphaerica... You know, that is exactly my thinking as well. I think SkS is doing a good job of making information available regarding all their claims, but ultimately it comes down to people's interest in the issue. The more and more the McI's of the world go overboard with these sorts of baseless claims, the sooner people will stop listening to them and start listening to the actual scientists. (Boy who cried wolf-syndrome.) -
Bob Lacatena at 08:29 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
25, Rob Honeycutt,They just want to stir up the dirt.
Let them. The mercury is rising, the ice is melting, the fires are burning, and summer hasn't even started. It's sad, because we've all seen it coming, but I have a feeling that within a few years every ridiculous stretch like this one is going to add up to a major "holy cow, what were we thinking listening to these clowns?" Utlimately, only the court jesters that frequent the court of WUWT will fail to see that something is amiss, and that more attention should be paid to the real scientists than to the wizards behind the curtains, frantically pulling levers and speaking into oversized microphones.Response:[DB] Fixed tag.
-
Bob Lacatena at 08:16 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
DB, The ancient Roman's actually invented urban legends, but I think that belief itself is only an urban legend. It is interesting to note that the ancient Greeks, on the other hand, invented recursion when their historians decided that the only peoples worth researching were themselves. How does this relate to the post and climate change? It doesn't, but if you delete this comment, you will be doomed to seven years of bad luck, which interestingly enough is a superstition which traces back to feudal Japan... -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:54 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Eric said... "People will rememeber the greenpeace connection much more than the report content." And that's exactly why it's a manufactured controversy. McI et al (probably) understand that there isn't much there to impugn the report. They just want to stir up the dirt. -
Riccardo at 07:33 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
I still can't see the scandal given that there are several people from the private sector between the lead authors of the report. Doesn't they have vested interested as well? Should they leave them out as well? I don't think it's correct to judge along this line. The Governments who nominated them apparently chose to have both. When we look for solutions it is and should be inevitable to invlove those people as well. -
Eric the Red at 06:50 AM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Actually it shows the correlation between sunspots and European temperatures back to 1650.Response:[DB] Not about sunspots or global temps. Still off-topic.
-
Eric the Red at 06:44 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Andy, I agree with you. The inclusion as lead author gives the impression of partiality. Especially since this is not the first time that the IPCC has been associated with greenpeace. Dana, I agree that it is a PR nightmare for the IPCC, coming at a time when they can least afford it. People will rememeber the greenpeace connection much more than the report content.
Prev 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 Next
