Recent Comments

Prev  1628  1629  1630  1631  1632  1633  1634  1635  1636  1637  1638  1639  1640  1641  1642  1643  Next

Comments 81751 to 81800:

81751. Albatross at 01:47 AM on 24 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       So Ken miraculously somehow manages to conflate Monckton's latest Nazi stunt (he has done it before, also watch this if you can stomach it) with Al Gore. The mind boggles. And as others have pointed out Ken's gratuitous and fallacious statements that he has attributed to some prominent figures who realize the seriousness of what lies before us. And Ken forgets that there are many Hockey Sticks out there, derived form independent data and data analysis techniques. The fact that he has to resort to this sort of BS just speaks to the vacuity of his 'arguments'. It would have been quite simple for Ken to unequivocally dismiss Monckton's latest BS. Telling that he could not bring himself to do that. And last but not least, note the venue at which Monckton was delivering his propaganda and slurs, the American Freedom Alliance. This is the same group that Lindzen has recently associated himself with. And these guys have the audacity and gall to accuse scientists of making AGW political.
81752. Bob Lacatena at 01:47 AM on 24 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       48, JBob, What does a temperature versus CO₂ graph possibly have to do with sea level rise, especially one containing such a cobbled together "NH" temperature estimate? Beyond this... exactly why should anyone trust your homespun science over all of the more thorough and complete data that is available? And, last but not least, why do you continue to be wedded to the false logic that temperature increases must mirror CO₂ increases, or that a failure to do so says anything whatsoever of value in reference to climate science? Your inability to get past that logical hurdle is preventing you from properly understanding the science. I would suggest that you shelve it, and move on with studying other things until you've learned enough to understand exactly why your premise is flawed. As long as you cling to it, you will be unable to advance your understanding of climate science, where we're all heading, and why.
81753. CBDunkerson at 01:39 AM on 24 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       Riccardo, Michael Crichton used to make the Wegener connection... though he incorrectly credited Wegener with the theory of plate tectonics. However, even that isn't really a good comparison. Wegener's ideas were not accepted because his suggested mechanisms for 'continental drift' (e.g. centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation) could be proven false. Once plate tectonics was worked out, and shown to match the available evidence, it was quickly accepted. Indeed, the acceptance of AGW is actually a much better analog to plate tectonics than its rejection would be. Arrhenius's (in place of Wegener) AGW theory was initially rejected for various reasons (e.g. poor measurement of CO2 absorption spectra, incorrect ideas about ocean uptake of CO2, et cetera) until sufficient evidence and new understandings of the mechanisms involved were developed. For AGW to be rejected now would be the equivalent of overturning the theory of plate tectonics... actually, it'd be even more remarkable given that there is much more evidence accumulated and confirmed over a longer timeframe.
81754. J. Bob at 01:36 AM on 24 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Some time ago I started looking at sea levels, using tidal gauge info, to see how it correlated to temperature. The So. & East coast of the US was chosen, since that seemed to have the least seismic activity, including uplift. I would have preferred the East coast of S. America, but the data records were not as good as US records. Looking at the records, noted in the figure below: US SE Tidal records Seven stations were selected, to form a composite anomaly. These included Galveston, Pensacola, Key West, Charleston, Baltimore, Atlantic City & New York. The composite was filtered with a 10 yr. Fourier filter, and compared to a Least Sq. Trend line: US SE Composite Tidal Anomaly It was noted that, after ~1915, the trend line held fairly close to the filtered composite, in spite of increasing CO2. The HadCRUT3 global anomaly was also included as a comparison. An addition, some long term records were evaluated, comparing temperature to CO2. These were from stations that began recording prior to 1800: Central England – 1659-2010 Debilt Netherlands – 1706 – 2010 UPPSALA (LÄN)Swed. – 1722-2010 BERLIN (TEMPELHOF), Ger – 1701-2010 PARIS (14E PARC MONTSOURIS) Fr, 1757-2010 GENEVE (NASA), Switz. – 1753-2010 BASEL (BINNINGEN) Swiz.- 1755-2010 PRAHA (KLEM.-RUZYNE) Czech – 1775-2010 STOCKH (GML-LAN) Sw – 1756-2010 BUDAPEST (Hungary) – 1780-2009 HOHENPEISSENBERG, Ger – 1781-2010 MUNCHEN, (RIEM FLUGHAFEN ), Ger – 1781-2010 EDINBURGH (SCOTLAND), GB- 1785- 1993 WROCLAW (SOUTH WEST), Pol – 1792-2010 CEL & Debilt were from: CEL Link Debilt Link The rest were from the Rimfrost site: Rimfrost Link The anomaly of each site was computed (1969-1999 base) & a composite average was formed for each year. The data set was then filtered with a 50 yr. Fourier Convolution filter, and compared to the CO2 Mauna Loa & Law Dome (DE08 & De08-2) ice core data. The result is shown below: NH Temp vs. CO2 Since all the long term temperature data was taken from central & western Europe, the HadCRUT3_NH anomaly was also included. A few items noted were: On a long term basis, there was little CO2 change, while Europe went through some temperature swings, comparable to the present. While the Ave14 & HadCRUT3_NH seem to follow each other (especially the post 1900 rise, 1940 dip & subsequent rise), CO2 seems to have little correlation. Ave14 seems to lead the HadCRUT3_NH curve by about 10 years, so we may be in for a NH dip, or are already in it. One final point, while the land surface can be measured for uplift, what is the sea floor surface doing?
       Response:

       [DB] Your final linked graphic you have posted here repeatedly.  And just as repeatedly, it has been pointed out the issues with conflating regional data to global data.

81755. KR at 01:32 AM on 24 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Ken Lambert - Ocean area is about ~3.6×10^8 km^2, with an average depth of 3790 meters. Sub-meter changes in sea level will not change ocean volume appreciably - well below the 2-3 digits of sea level rise rate accuracy; I believe they can safely be ignored until we look at meter+ total rises. In fact, to the extent that sea level rise increases the total volume available (via slope of shoreline transitions) this would decrease the observed rate of sea level rise with thermal and melt volume change, reducing the "hockey stick" slopes - meaning the problem could only be worse than the current paper shows. Your objection, Ken, is not valid - more of a red herring.
81756. KR at 01:21 AM on 24 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Camburn - You say you've read the paper; what particulars in the compensation for regional vs. global adjustments in the Results and Discussion section do you have issues with? You've complained, but not detailed why. Kemp et al show what they did at considerable length. In other words - what parts of the global/regional compensation and calibration do you think Kemp et al did wrong? Complaints about regional sea level changes elsewhere are, as others have noted, not valid objections to a calibrated and compensated data set.
81757. Eric the Red at 01:10 AM on 24 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Tom, I am not of the belief that there is an expiration date for action. Most effects appear to be reversible - action will just become harder.
81758. quokka at 00:45 AM on 24 June 2011
       IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
       #45 Marcus, Checking the IEA figures on fossil fuel subsidies, it seems that they are overwhelmingly in developing countries. Of the top forty nations providing subsidies, the only OECD member seems to be Mexico. There are reasons for these subsidies and removing them may well have serious adverse economic consequences. Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies
81759. Eric (skeptic) at 00:31 AM on 24 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Albatross, I just did, thanks. We will be plagued with a small sample size for a while trying to find trends with this type of event.
81760. Albatross at 00:27 AM on 24 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Eric @169, "One more caveat is that we could see violent tornadoes shift into Canada. Hasn't happened yet, but it seems plausible to me." Interesting that you should say that. Canada recorded its first F5 tornado in 2007 (Google 'Eli Tornado').
81761. les at 00:16 AM on 24 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       I have a request - if anyone is up to it; because, having tried, I'm not. We have the hockey team ... to me they are sufficiently similar that I'm inclined to attribute a common underlying phenomena. However, folks then come along and say one is caused by plate tectonics, another by sun-cycles, another by natural climate variations, that one is only local, another by my great aunts bath time... So, would it be possible to itemise the opposing hockey team? Seems like there's only one star player on the AGW team but many in the opposition. Team-AGW is bound to loose unless, of course, the opposing players get in each others way.
81762. Eric (skeptic) at 00:13 AM on 24 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Rob, thanks for that correction. I presume that figures 5a, 6a and 7a depict that background state or some sort of average? Then I can't use 5a or 6a for any projection about tornadoes. 7a, however, suggests a lot fewer storms in lower latitudes that are right now causing tornadoes.
81763. Bob Lacatena at 00:12 AM on 24 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       43, skywatcher, Yes, but Ken's conjectures add "serious" doubt to the equation. Who knows what sort of tectonic shifts are happening in the unreachable ocean depths? Who could know? While one might be able to prove that the volume of the water is increasing, one would never be able to prove that the volume of the tub isn't decreasing. ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] Let's focus on the science, not the person.

81764. Tom Curtis at 00:09 AM on 24 June 2011
       IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
       Marcus @46, when I worked at a power station in Mt Isa, they had four boilers. Two were needed to supply the town and mines. One was always down for routine maintenance, and one was kept operating on standby in case of failure by either of the two operational boilers. That way, in the event of failure, they could have a new boiler up to full power in 15 minutes rather than the several hours it would take for a cold start. That practise may well be fairly general, and may account for a significant fraction of the unused power.
81765. Bob Lacatena at 00:06 AM on 24 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       15, Ken,

       Robyn ... despite his eccentricities on climate change.

       Citations, please. Your first statement about him has been demonstrated to be 100% false. Do you have any others to support the repetition of your classification of his statements and position? Do you have any defensible examples of "outrageous claims and distortions" from anyone on the scientific side of the debate?
81766. Bob Lacatena at 00:03 AM on 24 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       9, CBDunkerson, And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with so many deniers. Every single time, without fail, that I go back to a source, I find what seems to be an eye-opening argument to be totally and completely devoid of any substance whatsoever, so much so that one has to stop and ask "who the heck took the time to even make this stuff up? Who was this mind bogglingly stupid (or evil) to kick off this misrepresentation (to put it kindly)?" There is no counter-response to something like what you posted in response in response to lame, whining allegations, and I doubt you'll see one. I would hope, though, that it would teach whomever uncritically believes that sort of thing to be just a little more skeptical, and go to the sources themselves, rather than having an "ah ha, I knew it" sort of moment, and stopping their investigations (and their own critical thinking) right there.
81767. Ken Lambert at 00:01 AM on 24 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       DM #11 Happy to comply with your rules as long as they are applied fairly to both sides of the debate. My "gratuitous insult snipped" was a commment about Monckton - not Garnaut as could be implied by your edit. "People like Monckton make me sick" and "nasty habit of his" is OK but my suggesting that he is 'barking mad' is not OK? BTW - I first carried on a correspondence with Robyn Williams over 30 years ago - and occasionally still do. I pointed him to the scepticism of Prof Don Aitken which resulted in a two part ABC Ockham's Razor broadcast here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2226464.htm Robyn can take anything I have to say about him - he is someone we all treasure despite his eccentricities on climate change.
       Response:

       [DB] Note:  You have been counselled repeatedly over your failure to comply with the Comments Policy.  So be it.  The next personal attack or gratuitous insult will result in a revocation of your participation privileges in this forum.  When your comments are formulated to comply with the Comments Policy, they definitely add to the discussion here.  Others reading this: no baiting.

81768. Rob Painting at 23:56 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Eric (skeptic) - "the models project more "El Nino-like" conditions" Actually Eric that's a common misconception, it simply means that the central and eastern tropical Pacific warms more than the western Pacific. See figure 5a in the Meehl paper you link to. ENSO events are still expected to happen, but the background state changes.
81769. Eric (skeptic) at 23:48 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       I should have also added that the trend in violent tornadoes has little to do with an apparent increase in tornadoes in general which I would expect to increase and widen in coverage. One more caveat is that we could see violent tornadoes shift into Canada. Hasn't happened yet, but it seems plausible to me.
81770. les at 23:47 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       13 - Riccardo ... If anyone is interested in a good read which makes this point about Galileo very nicely, may I recommend The Sky's Dark Labyrinth, a novel by Stuart Clark.
81771. Eric (skeptic) at 23:43 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       No trend in violent tornadoes, see fig 5 and section 5: http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/publications/Sigtor_climatology.pdf Two main ingredients for a strong tornado are rising air and fallng air. The first ingredient is obviously going to become more abundant, and with it, the risk of more tornadoes in general. The second ingredient requires mid-level dry air pushed by a strong jet. The rain hits the dry air creating a strong downdraft. If there is no downdraft, then there will be no strong tornado. The strong jet will likely be further north, see http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jyin/IPCC_paper_GRL_Jeff_Yin_final.pdf Also for a better argument about the "extreme ENSO" that Tom brought up earlier, the models project more "El Nino-like" conditions, see http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3746.1 Whether extreme or not, the lack of La Nina will be less conducive to low latitude storm tracks. Likewise in the same paper they point out the projected upward trend in AO which will also be less conducice to low latitude dry air and low latitude jets.
81772. Riccardo at 23:35 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       "Is he some Galileo shouting truth from the rooftops? Many use Galileo to justify their being alone against the scientific consensus. My impression is that none of them know history, otherwise they couldn't do such a baseless comparison. Those who make the comparison only prove their ignorance of the facts of history, together with the facts of science. A suggestion to the skeptics, name Alfred Wegener, a much more pertinent analog, and not Galileo. But also keep in mind that Wegener intuition just happened to be right, he couldn't prove his theory of continental drift in any reasonable way. It took several decades for the now accepted plate tectonics theory to develop.
81773. skywatcher at 23:24 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       Ken, do you actually have any evidence to suggest that the volume of the ocean basins (your 'bathtub') is changing in such a way as to provide the illusion of a rising sealevel? Of course you also have to account for why thermal expansion and observed ice mass loss are not contributing to the total volume of water in the bath as well... Otherwise your conjectures are nothing more than wild guesses, especially if, as I suspect, the increase in water volume is happening at a much higher rate than any change in the shape / volume of the basins.
81774. skywatcher at 23:17 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       I love the way the phrase 'hockey stick' is used by some as if it's a demeaning term. The 'hockey stick' is an excellent, well-validated result of some very thorough research. I suppose that makes it incompatible with the anti-science crowd? 'Hockey sticks' turn up all over the place not just in temperature records. I'd be very happy to be associated with the hockey stick, and even though Gore is by no means the originator of the research, I'm sure he's happy too... People like Monckton make me sick. They have been informed time and again by good people such as Abraham that what they spout is rubbish, yet they continue to knowingly spout disinformation. Having seen him on TV in Scotland in his UKIP guise spouting similar rubbish against renewable energy projects, it seems to be a nasty habit of his. I'm glad to hear that at least some in Oz are waking up to Monckton's misinformation.
81775. Ken Lambert at 23:17 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       The issue of sea level rise is a tricky one. I tend to think of it in two simple parts. 1. The total volume of water in the bath. 2. The volume of the bathtub. The volume of the water is defined by its mass and its temperature. Add mass - more volume. Add temperature - more volume and visa versa. The volume of the bathtub is influenced by the movement of the seabed, silting, rivers and dams and coastlines etc. Both volumes interacting together will determine the level of water measured on the side of the tub. However only the total volume of water is a direct measure of global warming via ice melt and thermal expansion. Therefore the volume of the tub must be accurately known for sea level changes to be an accurate measure of warming.
81776. Tor B at 23:10 PM on 23 June 2011
       Arctic sea ice has recovered
       This Cryosphere Today graphic has been updated through 2010.
81777. Marcus at 23:09 PM on 23 June 2011
       IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
       I've also noticed something quite disturbing....though maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Countries like Australia & the US generate a *lot* of surplus energy which isn't getting used. Australia generates around 30TWh of electricity per year more than what it uses (& given how inefficiently we currently use electricity, that's *REALLY* saying something), & the US generates around 250TWh of surplus electricity (minus exports). I wonder if this is a legacy of large, centralized generation facilities that are incapable of properly matching supply to demand and/or which are losing energy during transmission & distribution. Renewable Energy systems tend to be better in this regard because they can be built closer to the site of demand, & tailored better to energy demand at different times of the day & night!
81778. Marcus at 23:06 PM on 23 June 2011
       IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
       Lets not forget that even as late as 2009, global subsidies for the fossil fuel industry totaled just over US$300 billion per annum, whereas global subsidies for renewable energy is little more than US$20 billion-yet even with this massive discrepancy, renewable energy has made massive inroads in their production costs. Imagine where they would be by comparison if they halved fossil fuel subsidies & transferred them to renewable energy instead?
81779. Dikran Marsupial at 23:05 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       Ken, it is a shame that you were unwilling to follow the advice I gave in response to your post earlier in the thread. If you insist on adding snarks at the moderators, your posts will be deleted, regardless of its remaining content, as I have just done to your most recent submission. Warning #1 Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum. Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
81780. Rob Painting at 22:38 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       Beastie - in addition to the responses you have already received: the ancient periods referred to were steady states that changed slowly over millions of years, therefore life was able to adapt. Today the rate of change is so rapid, it is probably only exceeded in speed by the asteroid impact induced changes that wiped out the dinosaurs. Secondly: Greenhouse periods may have been times of lower global biodiversity. Now, why do you think Monckton neglects to mention such relevant information?
81781. CBDunkerson at 22:24 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       Ken wrote: "Of course outrageous claims and distortions afflict both sides of the debate - Robyn (100m of sea level rise) Williams, Tim (rivers will never run again) Flannery and Al (hockeystick) Gore come to mind on the AGW side." Actually, I'd put those all down as distortions on the denier side. Robyn Williams - Contrary to denier claims, he never 'predicted' that sea levels would rise 100 meters this century. Andrew Bolt (a vocal denier) asked him if it was possible and Williams, a non-scientist, started to reply, "Yes, but...". At which point Bolt cut him off... classic attack 'journalism'. Williams later said that the 'but' part was that it was very unlikely and could only happen as a temporary localized surge if a large volume of ice broke off and slid into the ocean from Antarctica. Tim Flannery - Again, he didn't say that 'rivers will never run again'. Rather, he said that increased heat and evaporation were resulting in drier soils and normal rainfall patterns being unable to fill reservoirs and river systems. Basically, 'water supplies have dropped because it has gotten hotter'. Hardly controversial, until distorted beyond all recognition... by Andrew Bolt again I believe. As to Gore... the hockey stick has been confirmed to be accurate by roughly a dozen subsequent studies, including at least two by vocal 'skeptics'. Outrageous claims and distortions are indeed the problem at hand, but if you actually go back to first sources you will find that the supposed 'outrageous claims' from AGW 'alarmists' usually fall somewhere between gross distortion and complete fabrication.
81782. Kevin C at 22:09 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       beastie@5: The solar irradiance at that point was probably at least 3% lower. That's about -7.5W/m^2 of forcing, which would need to be offset by two CO2 doublings (at least 1100ppm) even to produce global temperatures equivalent to today. Ironically this is another Monckton myth. For the lowdown, watch the first half of this video.
81783. Tom Curtis at 22:05 PM on 23 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Eric the Red @83, I am definitely getting excited about low ice, and not because it is a good thing. It just happens that the deniers are winning the PR war and as a result humans will probably not do anything adequate about it till it is too late. But one thing, I am sure, will cut through all the lies, obfustications and misdirections of the deniers - when a commercial ship sales from the Atlantic to the Pacific across the North Pole and sees no ice, the deniers game will be up. Unfortunately that will probably not be till 2030, and the used by date for effective action closes in 2020.
81784. Tom Curtis at 21:59 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Norman @163, in answer to your question about thunderstorms, the map on page 10 of this document gives a clue. Amongst the 960 events they list are floods in South East Queensland for December. On the ground that was a series of distinct flood events striking different towns at different times, but it was the same weather event. Likewise they list two major storm events in Australia, and three in the United States lasting from one to four days. Although each would have contained tens, and possibly hundreds of individual thunder storm cells, they where all part of the same weather event, and hence counted as just one event. One of the US storm events was a tornado outbreak,/a> which contained 60 tornadoes as well as, without doubt, innumerable thunderstorms, but for Munich Re's statistics is is just one event.
81785. Tom Curtis at 21:38 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Norman @various: 1) As the following chart shows, there has been a significant increase over time of the types of conditions that spawn tornados. Therefore while the conjecture that increased reporting of EF0 to EF2 tornadoes is simply an artifact of increased reporting, in fact it is at least partly a consequence of increased tornado frequencies. It is worthwhile comparing that chart to reported tornadoes: The significant correlation between days with tornado favourable conditions and reported tornadoes suggests that observational artifacts are not the sole cause of the increased in reported tornadoes. 2) Although 1974 was exceptional, as has been 2011, your analysis in 154 is unjustified. In particular while there have been 80 EF3 plus tornadoes to date in 2011, compared to approximately 124 F3 plus Tornadoes in 1974, there have been 6 EF6 tornadoes to date in 2011 compared to 6 (Wikipedia; 7 Tornado History Project). There also have been 17 EF 4 tornadoes to date in 2011, compared to 24 F4 (Wikipedia; 23 Tornado History Project) in 1974. Furthermore, all of the F4 and F5 tornadoes, and 64 of the F3 plus tornadoes occurred in just one outbreak, on April 3rd and 4th. That outbreak is the second largest on record, falling just behind the outbreak of outbreak of April 25-28, 2011, which had 330 tornadoes compared to the 1974 super outbreak with 148. The April 2011 Super outbreak only rates third in F/EF 4 and 5 Tornadoes (with 1974 ranking first), but there were two other major outbreaks in April 2011, and some minor ones. Given the near equality of F/EF 5 tornadoes between 1974 and 2011, and the small difference between in number of F/EF 4 tornadoes your assumption that the difference in numbers of damaging events is a function of anything other than an increase in hazards is unwarranted. In fact, it is not even based on a correct use of the definition. For a hazard to be classified as a disaster, it need harm only a single human being or their property. An EF0 tornado that blows ripe apples to the ground in a orchard thereby becomes a "disaster" and, if reported, will be recorded as such in the Munich Re chart. Finally, as an aside, the chart of high CAPE_SHEAR days shows a very low value for 1974. That is not an error. Except for the one super outbreak in April, and a small outbreak in September, 1974 was a quiet year for tornadoes.
81786. ScaredAmoeba at 21:38 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       beastie, CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Most if not all species extant have never seen such high levels of CO2 that you refer to. Pseudo-scepticism - Ignorance is the new knowledge. Rising trends mean decreases. Falling trends mean increases. Uncertainty means confidence.
81787. stefaan at 21:09 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       @Beastie, You can read more about that on the "carbon was higher in the past"-argument By the way, in no way R. Dawkins used this argument in any connection with AGW!
81788. Norman at 21:06 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Tom Curtis, My problem with the 2010 Munch Re report you posted on 141 was that they were showing that the catastrophic storm number in America was increaing. There are 10,000 severe thunderstorms in the US a year and out of that number Munch Re calls a few hundred catastropic and shows an increasing number. I just do not understand how they are generating their strom catastrophes. I am not sure what they are using and it becomes difficult to determine the reason for the increase when the actual number of severe storms far exceeds their counting. I will try to work on this as time permits to better understand it and see if there is a real link. I do like all the links you send me. I do like to learn. Because I question things does not mean I do not appreciate the material presented.
81789. CBDunkerson at 21:04 PM on 23 June 2011
       Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
       Eric wrote: "I do not know why so many people are getting exciting about breaking the 2007 low this year." I haven't noticed this 'excitement', but 'Arctic sea ice has been recovering since 2007' is a frequently repeated denier falsehood... so the next new record breaking year (in sea ice extent or any other cherry-picked factor) is always welcome as proof of the ridiculousness of that argument. Though in this case the continuing decline in Arctic sea ice volume already provides more than enough proof. What is particularly interesting about this year is that the trend in ice volume decline has reached the point where it either has to level out or hit zero in just a few years. If the volume drops as much from 2011-2014 as it did over the 2007-2010 period then we are looking at an essentially ice-free Arctic ocean. It isn't certain that this year will be determinative, but it could be and we'll definitely know one way or the other by 2015.
81790. Norman at 21:01 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       JMurphy @160 My use of tornadoes in Post 154 was a response to your challenge "It would help if you could compare what you believe to be the case, and what is actually the case, especially with regard to 'disasters', 'hazards', etc." I used the tornadoes because I was able to find data about them for the purpose of showing how a hazard becomes a disaster and pointing out that the number of actual hazards does not translate into number of disasters. I was not using tornado number to disprove the link between Global warming and extreme weather events.
81791. beastie at 20:58 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       I notice Monckton is speaking to the mining industry, but also at Morgan Research in Collins St., Melbourne, to the "Institute for Private Enterprise". Morgan research also have listed a paper by "The Fair Farming Group" which someone with more knowledge than me should review. it says things like... "5. In the Carboniferous Age when fossil fuels were formed was there dangerous global warming? When carbon dioxide levels were between 2,000 and 3,000ppm this was a very good time for life on Earth and for growth of the vegetation which subsequently formed fossil fuels. The eminent scientist Professor Richard Dawkins described the period as supporting abundant plant and animal life. At that time carbon dioxide levels were between 5 and 8 times the present level and the evidence shows that these conditions were favourable for life on Earth. These levels are far in excess of danger levels predicted by the IPCC. " Any comments?
81792. Tom Curtis at 20:20 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       Norman @155, yes I did, and the difference in extreme maximum temperatures is due to the well known fact that the hottest years in the Continental US were in the 1930/40s. Of course, the 30s and 40s where not as hot as the 90s and 00s globally, as is also well known. Consequently we would expect a similar chart for global extreme maximum temperatures to peak in the 00s, if one existed. @157, that's it? Just thanks for the links? If any links showing AGW to be real and dangerous are posted, you are quick respond with a comment, any comment no matter how ill founded, so long as it plays down the evidence. But if links apparently supporting a denier point of view are posted, you just accept them uncritically even when at least one of them has been shown to be of very poor quality. You really ought to stop saying that you are just trying to learn here, because you are not keeping up the pretence very well. @158 in fact the greatest increases in reporting have been in North America, and in Asia, particularly China and India. The trend in South America has been flat, while that in Africa has matched the global trend, but reporting rates are very low. As the areas of greatest increase in reporting have also been high population areas with modern communications over the entire period, the suggestion that the increase is due to increased reporting in third world nations is ill founded.
81793. Kevin C at 19:59 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       Good article. I like your video too. Have you seen Peter Hadfield's latest (Monckton Bunkum #5), out this week? This sentence bothered me slightly: None of the articles I read supported the claims or inferences that Mr. Monckton was promoting. While it is no doubt accurate, I guess there is a little cherry-picking in the assertion? e.g. Monckton cites at least Soon and Lindzen: I'm presuming you didn't bother to read those, but if you had they would require a different refutation.
81794. JMurphy at 19:35 PM on 23 June 2011
       Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
       With regard to tornadoes, a post by Andrew Freedman in the Washington Post gives a good overview, with links to papers : Are La Nina and global warming behind the extreme tornado activity? There was also an interesting piece in Science Daily a few years back : Global Warming Will Bring Violent Storms And Tornadoes, NASA Predicts But, as scaddenp notes, why are we suddenly focussing on tornadoes ? Not a diversion, for some strange so-called skeptical reason, is it ?
81795. Michele at 19:24 PM on 23 June 2011
       The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
       @ Patrick I would like your point of view about the arising of the heat sinks and sources ”(Venus-Earth-Mars Profiles)” within the uniform temperature profile of a perfectly transparent atmosphere later than a GHG is added. Perhaps, absit iniuria verbis, a greater synthesis would be more effective for our purposes.
81796. JMurphy at 18:47 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       What "outrageous claims and distortions" has "Al (hockeystick) Gore" made ? Why the specific link between Gore and the 'hockeystick' ? Are the "claims and distortions" only outrageous in the minds of so-called skeptics or those in denial ? Is Gore one of those "AGW proponents" some see everywhere ? What, actually, is an "AGW proponent" ? Finally, can anyone name any "sensible sceptics" ? With regard to Robyn Williams, of whom I knew nothing until he was just mentioned, I presume this is in reference to his comment to that very rational commentator (ahem) Andrew Bolt ? This is what Williams has to say about that : "So, what to make of this encounter? I draw two conclusions. The first is that the handful of 'climate sceptics' are politically driven and exploit the same trademark clutch of factoids and phrases. They ignore published, peer-reviewed scientific papers containing evidence that shatters their case, vanishingly small as it is. The noise they make is out of all proportion to their puny numbers, and they protest furiously that all they are doing is trying to save us from unnecessary paralysing angst – rather than inconvenient truth." Hear, hear.
81797. stefaan at 18:05 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       @Ken. Well, maybe your comments are deleted because you don't participate to the discussion via arguments. If you use the Monckton method (give no reference at all or -even more popular- quote it in a complete apropriate way) those comments will be deleted I think. If you give studies that support your point of view, you will be welcomed to join the debate for sure.
81798. scaddenp at 18:05 PM on 23 June 2011
       Sea Level Hockey Stick
       This seems to be wondering off track somewhat here. Lets see if I have it clear. We have various historical records like fish farms, harbours etc. which help construct past sea level. While these show sealevel hasnt changed a lot of last 2-3000 years, they don't rule out the possibility that there were large fluctuations between these points. One thing about sealevel, unlike temperature, is that without volcanic/instrusive activity or faulting, you cant get wild fluctuations in sealevel in one part of world and not in others. In this sense, any high-resolution record is as good as an other. The point in this paper is that in the best records in terms of resolution, accuracy of timing and depth, there are not wild changes and current sealevel rates are extraordinary compared to the last 2000 years.
81799. Ken Lambert at 17:45 PM on 23 June 2011
       The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
       [moderator trolling deleted] Monckton's Nazi reference to Ross Garnaut is quite outrageous [gratuitous insult snipped] There is an extreme 'denier' position which I do not support - and which does the sensible sceptic position some harm. Of course outrageous claims and distortions afflict both sides of the debate - Robyn (100m of sea level rise) Williams, Tim (rivers will never run again) Flannery and Al (hockeystick) Gore come to mind on the AGW side.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Ken, if you dont want your comments deleted, do not deliberately provoke the moderators by challenging them to delete your posts. You ought to know by now that such complaints about moderation are off-topic and are deleted as such (after reading). I have been generous in editing your post rather than deleting it, I will cease to be as generous if you continue in the same vein.
81800. monkeyorchid at 17:43 PM on 23 June 2011
       Review of 2084: An Oral History of the Great Warming by James Powell
       I have written a short story on the same topic, with much the same goals. It is available at: http://greysparrowpress.net/SPRING2011ShortStoryRichardMilne.aspx please share this link with Skeptical Science readers!

Prev  1628  1629  1630  1631  1632  1633  1634  1635  1636  1637  1638  1639  1640  1641  1642  1643  Next