Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 Next
Comments 82451 to 82500:
-
John Russell at 22:09 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran -- hey man, I'm not a scientist so I can only make suggestions. OK, here's another way to answer. The interviewer asks; "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?" Possible answer: "Does the audience understand the scientific meaning of 'statistically-significant'? Because without understanding that phrase my answer is likely to confuse." Interviewer says (though I think it's unlikely): "It means that there's a probability of 95%." Scientist response: "Precisely" (or whatever needs to be said to establish that statistically significant means a 95% probability). "In fact the statistics give us 92.8%, which I'm sure we'd all agree is a pretty high level of probability -- though perhaps not quite the level that scientists would call the 'statistically significant' level of 95%. So, does that meet the Dikran test? -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:05 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK wrote: "I was only interested to find out if anyone here has any idea as to why there seems to have been no actual warming in the southern hemisphere whereas the warming in the northern hemisphere is clearly more pronounced." which is, shall we say, rather inconsistent with your earlier statement: ". I said that it does not make any difference whether or not there was any significant warming if it can be proved (as I have done) that the warming is natural and not man-made." It isn't even true that there has been no SH warming, as has been pointd out to you already. If you really want to know the answer to that question, then why not read the chapter on regional climate change in the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report? I suspect the difference in land cover is a large part of it. The southern oceans have a massive thermal inertia, which will be buffering the SH from AGW more than the NH, which has less ocean. Of course none of that changes the fact that your analysis is statistically nonsense and that you refuse to address statistical criticism of it. -
MoreCarbonOK at 21:55 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
@Eric From opening the link that you gave, I cannot see the (original) data & info only an abstract. -
MoreCarbonOK at 21:50 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
@Dikran See 74 again I was only interested to find out if anyone here has any idea as to why there seems to have been no actual warming in the southern hemisphere whereas the warming in the northern hemisphere is clearly more pronounced. Anyone? -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:39 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK, what do you think of this study http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005.../2005GL024379.shtml -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:37 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell Had Jones answered that way, he would be subject to the criticism that a lower standard of statistical evidence was required for evidence infavour of AGW than was required of evidence against the mainstream position. The Daily mail would be reporting "Double Standard by IPCC Scientists Exposed". Jones had not performed a U turn, but that didn't stop the press reporting it that way. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:33 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK From your comment here: "Every month of the year at a weather station treated as a new test." From your the link you provided to your website: "The first result clearly shows that there has been no significant warming in Brisbane during the past 35 years." In both cases, emphasis mine. So, you still have not addressed the point that data for individual station data cannot be used for reliable estimation of secular trends, you have not addressed the point that looking at a multitude of trends in the way that you do is a recipe for cherry-picking (c.f. multiple hypothesis testing problem), and all you want to do is try and evade the point about your incorrect usage of statistical terms. The inability to address (never mind accept) criticism is what makes someone a denier rather than a skeptic. It is your choice. -
skywatcher at 21:33 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
#82, you're falling into the massive trap of cherry-picking your data. One could ask why you picked your selected 'random' sites from around the world, but you fail because you don't aggregate sites together to remove the variability of weather, as Dikran has stated several times. From Braganza et al, 2004: "Observed DTR [Diurnal Temperature Range] over land shows a large negative trend of ~0.4C over the last 50 years that is very unlikely to have occurred due to internal variability. This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (~0.9C) than maximum temperatures (~0.6C) over the same period." And a quote from Alexander et al, 2006: "When averaged over the globe, almost all of the temperature indices show significant changes over the 1951–2003 period. Trends in temperature indices, as detailed below, reflect an increase in both maximum and minimum temperature. There is also generally a much larger percentage of land area showing significant change in minimum temperature extremes than maximum temperature extremes. The magnitude of the trends is also generally greater for minimum temperature related extremes. This finding is in agreement with previous studies using monthly global data, e.g., Jones et al. [1999] and regional studies using daily data, e.g., Yan et al. [2002]." Funny you suggest that the southern hemisphere is not warming either, in HADCRUT3 it shows a steady and significant warming trend, check woodfortrees for the data. The aggregated signal for Southern Hemisphere stations is clear warming. I assume you're cherrypicking stations that appear not to show a trend? -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:32 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
I assume the null hypothesis of Jones is that GAT is not changing? That appears easy to disprove using each monthly GAT change as an independent test. But each monthly change is not an independent test because there is lots of autocorrelation (here is a made-up example: http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/411trend.htm) IOW, GAT might increasing "since 1995" because it shows 16 year increases (and decreases) over the entire record (~120 years of monthly GAT) so the current rise is not unusual. My question is, if some statistical test can determine the significance of the "since 1995" rise in the context of the whole record, doesn't that become a test for natural variability? -
John Russell at 21:30 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran writes: "What if the interviewer presses for a direct answer "so the increase in temperature is not statistically significant then?"." Easy. If pressed by the question you suggest, you respond, "Yes, it is, 1995-2009 is statistically significant at a 92.8% confidence level." You can be pretty sure that any reporter will have to accept that, as they don't know anything about significance levels. Whether the bloggers afterwards try to make something of it is irrelevant; at least the Daily Mail doesn't print that you've done a 'U' turn. -
Eric the Red at 21:29 PM on 15 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
Bart, how did you arrived at a current "committed" value of 2.4C? It appears that you are attributing higher warmer to the gases other than CO2. Is this correct? -
MoreCarbonOK at 21:21 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
@Dikra But I did say that not. Just go back to 74. I said that it does not make any difference whether or not there was any significant warming if it can be proved (as I have done) that the warming is natural and not man-made. So the whole argument about the confidence interval is a non-issue. You think that it not on tpoic? I say that the actual global warming can be easily assessed and is in the region of ca. 0.02 degrees C annum since 1974. It is accompanied by a reduction in humidity of ca. 0.02% per annum since 1974. But it not the minimum temps that have pushed up the global temp. It was the maxima. So the global warming is natural. It as easy a pie. Check it out yourself. http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:02 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK O.K., so if you are not doing formal hypothesis test, you should not use the words "test" and "significance" with relation to a trend as that is what those words imply. You should know that from stats 104. You will also note that the topic of this article is statistical significance. Secondly, even if you are not performing formal hypothesis tests, the multiple test issue still applies to informal test. If you test enough you will always be able to find the result you want. That doesn't mean that the argument is correct. It is a recipe for cherry picking (whether inadvertant or deliberate). You still have not addressed the point that you can't use station data to detect the secular variation known as climate. Calculating trends separately for each month only makes that problem worse. Read the articles by Glen Tamblyn that I pointed out to you, and if you think your method is better, then lets discuss it on that thread. -
MoreCarbonOK at 20:40 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK@dikran You do not get it yet. There is no hypothesis testing going on here. All the slopes (inclines or declines) measured are for real and they show real history. Mostly taken from 1974. I don't trust the data from long before that. Perhaps start here: http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok until you get to the point where you see why and how we started my pool table on global warming. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:22 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK wrote "Every month of the year at a weather station treated as a new test". So how do you deal with multiple hypothesis testing issues? BTW, you do also know that the weather noise at individual stations is very large compared with the expected trend (so for station data you would not expect to see a statistically significant trend at station level). Spatial averaging averages out the weather noise and leaves you with whatever secular variation is in the data (i.e. what we call climate rather than weather). That is why climatologists look at long term regional or supra-regional trends, not trends at individual stations. See Glenn Tamblyn's excellent series of articles starting with this one for more information. -
MoreCarbonOK at 20:18 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK@macoles I know my stats and I know my method is right. Just average monthly temps as recorded / versus time. Every month of the year at a weather station treated as a new test. Example: look at the results from Brisbane: http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/no-global-warming-in-brisbane-australia Just doing the linear regression in EXCEL it calculates the trendlines automatically....(In the old days we had to sit with a calculator!!) the slope you get (temp versus time) is the average increase noted over time. there are no errors. This is it. It is as easy as pie. If you don't understand it how I got those results you must study Stats 104. I see you also don't know why the southern hemisphere shows no warming. Quite a difference (see 2nd table from my pool table, mean average temp.) No global warming as a result of an increase in green house gases, in any case. http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming -
macoles at 19:17 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK @74, edit to my post @76 (otherwise your yearly trend error range is +/- twice maximum monthly variation divided by 35 years) should be: (otherwise your yearly trend error range is +/- twice maximum monthly variation irrespective of the 35 years of data) -
macoles at 19:10 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK @74 Perhaps average each data set's year to year difference for each month over the 35 years. That way any single unusual year gets averaged out. Unfortunately its 35 times the work you've already done, but that's the treatment the data needs to reduce your errors by a factor of 35. As to the wisdom of only using a tiny sample of available stations, well I hope they are at least well spaced for latitude. I'm sure you'll appreciate that the amount of greenhouse warming depends on the latitude and is strongest at the poles. -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:56 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell O.K., so you don't start by agreeing. What happens if the interviewer presses for a direct answer "so the increase in temperature is not statistically significant then?". Not giving a direct answer in such situations means you end up making a fool of yourself, c.f. e.g. Paxman versus Howard. As I said, not giving a direct answer to the question would end up with the hostile media presenting it as "the question Phil Jones wouldn't answer". The last thing we want is for scientists to act like politicians (or at least to sound like them)! Tom Curtis Had Jones said "That is more because of the short interval being considered than the size of the increase." it would not have been an accurate/honest statement. The lack of statistical significance is due to the size of the increase, it is too small given the noise level and the size of the window. "Of course, whether the rise meets a statistical test makes no difference to it impact on melting ice sheets, and increased range of tropical diseases." would also attract criticism by those who would attribute ice melt to natural ocean cycles etc. That is probably a bogus explanation of course, but they would point out that you were basis a causal link between global warming and ice melting where the global warming was not statistically significant and hence you should not claim it exists (following normal scientific practice). Basically if it is O.K. for you to ingnore the result of tests of statistical significance, why isn't it O.K. for them? -
macoles at 18:48 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
MoreCarbonOK @74 Visited your site and eyeballed the data table. How are you calculating the C/yr each month for the various sites over the 35 years? I see a lot of your sites have wildly swinging average rates between the months! Over 35 years this would be completely implausible. You need to make sure that you are properly fitting linear trends to each data set, and not simply calculating using only the first and last values of the set (otherwise your yearly trend error range is +/- twice maximum monthly variation divided by 35 years). I haven't done statistical trend fitting myself, but I'm sure there is some good advice on the internet somewhere. Hopefully someone here can offer a suggestion for you. -
adelady at 18:07 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Global warming doesn't 'happen' at the local level. Global warming affects the whole of the global atmosphere and ocean systems. And because of that general, global, warming we observe and measure different events at different, specific, localities. Therefore we see more or less warming/ drying/ flooding/ snowing/ melting in different places and seasons. The planet's climate is not uniform in the first place. So there's no reason to expect that effects of a general change will be uniform in any particular, specified localities. -
bartverheggen at 17:35 PM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
I had left a link to your 'Princeton' article on Jeff Id's blog, where he lauded Happer's WUWT article. That precipitated his interest in your post. -
bartverheggen at 17:33 PM on 15 June 2011Speaking science to climate policy
If you separate out the (long lived) greenhouse forcing and the (short lived) aerosol forcing, the 2 degree target suddenly looks a lot closer. The total radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFC's, N2O, O3) is around 3 W/m2, with which we have ‘committed’ the planet to warm up by 2.4 °C (1.6-3.6 °C), according to a climate sensitivity of 3 °C (2-4.5 °C) for a doubling of CO2. The observed amount of warming thus far has been less than this, because part of the excess energy is stored in the oceans (amounting to ~0.5 °C), and the remainder (~1.3 °C) has been masked by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols (Ramanathan and Feng, 2009). This simple analysis shows that the ‘2 degree target’ of maximum acceptable warming is looming on the horizon, as the climate equilibrates and aerosol pollution is cleaned up. -
Bern at 17:06 PM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
David Horton: yes, it's the "You don't agree with me, ergo you are evil incarnate" school of thought. The way I look at it is to consider population demographics. For instance, I work in a company staffed almost exclusively by university graduates with at least bachelor-level degrees. I gave a recent presentation on global warming science (which was well received), and was somewhat surprised at the level of maths comprehension - it was quite a bit lower than I had assumed. Yet these people are amongst the brightest 15-20% of the population (or at least their schooling results indicated that). Many of the commenters that we see cropping up are likely in the lower 50% of the demographic pile. That's not to say they disagree because they're stupid - it's to say that climate science isn't an easy thing to understand, and unless it's explained carefully, in the right way, people will misunderstand it, even some very intelligent ones. Combine that with some media & bloggers that either don't understand or deliberately misrepresent climate science, and voila! You've got a large pool of people who not only don't understand climate science, but are actively being told that those 'evil scientists' are somehow part of a giant conspiracy to fool us all. I've heard a number of climate myths repeated here at work, and many people are surprised when they hear what the science actually says. Then, finally, remember that the squeaky wheel gets the grease - i.e. you only pay attention to the ones that shout loudest (or post comments on blogs & articles). The vast majority don't pop up on the radar. -
MoreCarbonOK at 16:51 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
I wonder. I think it does not matter whether the increase in temps. is statistical significant or not. What is important though is whether the warming is man-made or natural. My conclusion is that it was natural warming. Namely, there is no proof of any heat entrapment caused by an increase in GHG’s. Except on Honolulu, maybe, but that result there seems a bit suspicious to me. In hindsight, I forgot that we have volcanic activity there. So I should not have visited that station. http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming So you can all stand on your heads now and scream at the nations to stop using fossil fuels but even if you were able to stop that now, or reverse it, it would not change the results. Now I will admit that some type of systematic error may be incorperated in my results but essentially we are still comparing apples with apples, assuming the equipment used all over the world to measure temps. is more or less the same. What is interesting to note in my results is that there has been no global warming on the SH (the first 5 stations in the tables). It all happens in the NH. Any ideas as to why that is? Anyone? -
jonicol at 15:53 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Thanks for the helpful comments Albatross. Being new to blog discussion and I viewed a discussion on Christy's climate science as being exchanges on scientific issues. I now realise that the heading of the post indicates the topic for discussion - in this case the errors made by Christy, Spencer and Lindzen. -
scaddenp at 15:09 PM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
"Former natural warming have the same "isotopic signature" as the present " I dont see how that can be concluded from the paper. This is part of investigation into carbon cycling with glacial cycle but it looked at 14C/12C ratios. 14C is handy for determining age of carbon. However, 14C ratios in modern atmosphere tell you nothing much except that we exploded nuclear devices in the atmosphere ruining any useful science. Instead, carbon cycle has to be investigated by 13C/12C ratios. Because fossil carbon is heavily depleted 13C, it shows excess CO2 in atmosphere is from fossil fuel not from ocean. -
Albatross at 15:03 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Jonicol, say hi to Tom Harris (the head of your sister astro turf "skeptic"/disinformation group in Canada (ICSC)) from us. How about "Friends" of Science, any connection between ACSC and them? The ICSC links to your group, FoS, and ClimateDepot, and NewZealand CSC, ICECAP and SPPI-- quite the social network dedicated to misinforming. But I digress. This thread is about Christy's crocks. You claiming/asserting above that @52 that <"I could find none which goes deeply enough into the science to show "WHY" they are wrong. " is a rather odd strawman argument to make. First, you could start by actually reading the main post and following the links therein. If that does not suffice, then you can use the search function here at SkS to find articles dedicated to refuting Christy (and Lindzen and Spencer). Third, there is plenty of science and information, both here and in the scientific literature refuting Christy (and Lindzen and Spencer). Finally, while your post @52 is lengthy on pontification and rhetoric, but very short on substance and on science. -
Chris G at 14:45 PM on 15 June 2011The greenhouse effect is real: here's why
Regarding my post @14, I mangled something in memory. I was thinking of radioactive decay, which would equalize the 14C in both fossil fuels and other sequestered carbon, but 13C is stable, and so would not be affected by long sequestration. However, apparently plants prefer 12C; so, that preference is what makes the difference between carbon bearing rocks and fossil fuels. So, it would indeed be surprising if the isotopic composition of the carbon in atmosphere were the same as today. However, I haven't see that yet. -
Albatross at 14:37 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Sphaerica @86, No worries. Thanks for the clarification, the apology was big of you. I do not know what the best way is to deal with these seemingly deliberate attempts to misinform, confuse and incite, the efforts to do so seem to be ramping up of late as SkS starts to become more widely recognized; SkS is also clearly perceived as a threat by people loyal to Christy and Lindzen and Spencer. They obviously do not like the harsh light of day being shone on their antics. Removing the "rot" (i.e., posts fitting your description) quickly would help, but I understand that doing so is not easy. So instead we have to rebut the falsehoods, and that is tedious, not to mention much more time consuming to set the record straight than it is for the aggressor to spread disinformation, and they know that. Oh well...we do our best. All the best mate. -
actually thoughtful at 14:34 PM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Going back to the original post - which includes a graph from CRU data and shows warming rate in degrees C/year - given that that number is always positive (I see the error bars drop negative, but the claimed number is positive), how can there have been a cooling trend? Wouldn't at least one year have to be below zero. I went and got myself confused. Clarification appreciated. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:35 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
80, Albatross, You may be right, in that my choice of analogy probably evoked the wrong image. I'll need to look for other, better words, though, because I've noticed a certain behavior of late. New visitors pop in, drop a rapid fire series of little comments containing known falsehoods (my "grenades"), and either quickly leave, or make no effort to defend them but simply repeat them, or move on to a new not-barrage of [substitute-other-word-for-grenades-here]. The way it is happening is bothersome, and the only thing that I can see that can be done is to quickly "defuse" these not-grenades by as quickly as possible by picking them out one by one and rebutting them. The thing is, so many of them aren't even remotely valid points (and are often so non-specific) that rebuttal is more tedious than anything else. Still, a random visitor that picks up on such a comment may walk away with the wrong impression (especially if they are the sort of person to read such a comment, and then uncritically stop there and decide that the entire post has been effectively rebuked). So, yes... apologies for the wrong choice of words and imagery. No apologies for identifying the behavior and calling it something... I just have to find something better to call it the next time that it happens. -
KR at 13:11 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol - Given your knowledge of the connections, common PO box, phone number, and shared staff (Executive Director <> secretary, incidentally) with the AEF, your statement "The Australian Climate Science Coalition, though, is not in any way connected to the AEF or to the IPA." is, in fact, wholly untrue. Your denial of this connection is, quite frankly, a falsehood. The AEF is a lobbying front group for the IPA, and the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) appears to be a website and science group created for the purpose of presenting the views of the IPA/AEF to the world in a less visibly connected fashion - the purpose being to raise doubt about climate change and slow government actions thereof. The inclusion of Plimer, Carter, Evans, Archibald, and Kininmonth in the Scientific Advisory Panel only reinforce this - they are all well noted for promoting skeptical fallacies such as discussed on this website. The ACSC is an advocacy group, as I stated before - while I will not outright dismiss the data and opinions presented by such advocacy groups, I will take them with the appropriate grain of salt, much as I took anything presented by the "Tobacco Institute" or take those representing "Clean Coal". In regards to the science of CO2 physics, IR interactions, etc., I am (and I believe others are) more than willing to discuss those with you on a material and factual basis. At the very least such a discussion will be educational for all readers. To remain topical, I might suggest the CO2 effect is weak, CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration, CO2 only causes 35% of global warming threads, or others as appropriate (see the Search link at the top of the page). -
scaddenp at 13:02 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Both websites list Max Rheese as Executive director rather than secretary. Strange. However, I am happy to discuss science. -
jonicol at 12:22 PM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
KR Yes, we do indeed share secretarial services in Max Rheese with the AEF, and he is a very good secretary. He continues to refer all correspondence to me which I deal with, without any reference to Max unless it involves material for posting on our website which is maintanined by a paid, totally independent, as far as I am aware, web master. I am sorry if you feel I had deceived you and yes I should have mentioned that connection but believed it to be of no consequence. I am not asking for any of your affiliations as it is of no concern to me. I accept that you have a very different approach to the science of global warming, your being dependent on broad spectrum of evidence and models, whereas I am trying to focus my attention on only one, I guess very narrow, aspect , that of the characterisitics and behaviour of carbon dioxide in the air. I don't mind if you say I am wrong, I expect that. What I would also like to know is why I am wrong. I had come here comparatively recently to try to make some contact with people whose views would be different from mine and to discuss the science of global warming in an atmosphere of recognition of each others case. An old fashioned way I admit. I had also seen at the top of this box a reference to "Political, off-topic or ad...." which I hadn't before interpreted as meaning one could not present scientific ideas which differed from the mainstream. For that I am sorry, particularly to Sphaerica who seems to be very upset by my careless comments, and KR at 81 also. -
Rovinpiper at 11:58 AM on 15 June 2011Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
How has this typo survived? Paragraph 2, sentence 2 shouldn't "...brief warm period 8,200 years ago..." be "...brief cool period 8,200 years ago...", or am I just losing it?Moderator Response: You are misreading the graphic. It shows a brief cool period just prior to 8,000 years ago, followed by a brief warm period about 8,200 years ago. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:34 AM on 15 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
DSL, thanks for your thoughtful response (#57). I must point out in response that capital is most useful and grows when it is invested, accumulation of capital for only consumption purposes is not unusual but is useless and counterproductive for that individual. BIll Gates, as one example, is not a mere accumulator of capital, but a shrewd businessman who reinvested nearly all the capital that he had and then ended up with a lot more falling into his lap. But his investment could have gone the other way. I realize that has nothing to do with CC mitigation, but need to point out my alternative view of what capitalism is. Its history has some activities not considered moral today as you point out. I probably should not have used the ill-defined term wealth, but pointed out that particular amount of savings beyond immediate needs and long term savings can be spent on environment improvements and CC mitigation if one chooses to. If those savings aren't available they cannot be spent. It may well be that CC mitigation is an urgent need for Haitian farmers, but their worst problems often come from the weaker type of tropical storm that just sits and dumps rain as opposed to the hypothesized stronger (but perhaps fewer) storms. The question of costs is important for them as the rest of us. Better erosion control is vital with or without CC. Their extra money whether from reduced demands for physical labor (thanks to capitalism) or from capitalism itself, helps. It is a very valid point that I manage my land according to my best interests. Some of mine are stabilizing the slope (being on an outside curve on the river means constant natural erosion), promoting native plants and wildlife (mild competition with friends who do the same), but also putting in a supply of wood for the winter, converting an area from almost useless fire hazard cedar to hardwood and native understory, and a little bit of gardening/farming. Some of the latter could conflict with the broader environmental good at least in the short run. I could also sell and let the next guy clear cut But I recognize the need for local environmental protection that dovetails with CC mitigation. I could probably afford the luxury of an electric car (with my present commute) if it were reasonable and had other benefits (not having to fill it up with gas). I already bought 4 decent sized solar panels in 2004 and have about 300 pounds of lead batteries in the crawl space and that was simply as a hobby. I did a lot of work with south facing windows and black paint including a solar-driven solar heat collector mounted on the foundation. There are probably a few other things I don't remember at the moment. But the point is that all this was possible because I had the extra money to spend on it and would not have been without it. -
David Horton at 11:34 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
The frightening thing, the really frightening thing, is that the responses on the web site for this include the same rabid denier responses from the usual run of far-right ideologues (American and home grown) and amateur nutters. You would think a site like this, and a letter like this, would remain free of this rubbish, but there seems to be a collective, perhaps unconscious, decision, that any time scientists actually refer to the science of climate change they will be blanketed by this garbage. -
Bern at 11:31 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
Badgersouth, I suspect the signatories decided to take action now because the climate debate is heating up (pun not intended) here in Australia. We're possibly with days or weeks of the government announcing the introductory price they are going to put on carbon in upcoming legislation. The opposition and many business groups are going ballistic, spreading FUD like it's going out of style. Many of their arguments are core denier arguments, that it's not happening, it's not us, or it's not bad. I'm glad that some scientists are attempting to spread the message about the science. Hopefully they'll get at least a little media coverage. Related to dana's comment above - yes, it pulls no punches, but it needs to be aggressive to get any media attention. If it comes out as a 'smackdown' of the anti brigade, it might get good coverage. Yes, it would alienate the hardcore deniers, but they were never going to be convinced anyway. The mainstream might sit up & take notice, however, and it is they who need to be convinced. -
adelady at 11:29 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
"Why did the signatories decide to take collective action now? " Because they're scientists. They've always operated on the belief that other people will see the evidence and look at the analysis and reasoning of scientists and come to similar conclusions. What do they get instead? Rampant denialists raging across talkback radio - which everyone expects, but also expects to die down when the shockjocks move on to a new target. Instead of the public discourse moving towards more acceptance of increasingly convincing evidence, they find themselves, their colleagues and their families subjected to more hate mail and worse. Fed up. That would be why. -
Tom Curtis at 11:21 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran Marsupial @66, with respect, Jones could have answered along the lines of:"The Earth has warmed by 0.12 degrees since 1995 which in global terms is certainly a significant increase, but it does not quite meet the statisticians test for statistical significance. That is more because of the short interval being considered than the size of the increase. The rise from 1994, for example, does meet the test for statistical significance. Of course, whether the rise meets a statistical test makes no difference to it impact on melting ice sheets, and increased range of tropical diseases."
Had he done so, misrepresenting the answer would have required far more selectivity in quotation, and the misrepresentation would have been significantly more transparent to those seeing the full quote. On the other hand, people seeking to misrepresent an opinion will do so no matter how selective they need to be. Further, even pausing to think is not always a wise strategy. Such pauses can be, and have been left in the edit to create the impression that the interviewee is speechless, or unwilling to answer the question (as happened to Richard Dawkins on one occasion). -
Tom Curtis at 11:03 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
chris @22, I think the question of whether the Greenland ice sheet can survive at current CO2 levels and insolation and whether at current CO2 levels changes in insolation due to the Milankovitch cycles could trigger an ice age are distinct. Although NH insolation is approaching its minimum for the current cycle, it can be reduced to much lower levels (and will in the next cycle), so that even with current CO2 levels a glaciation may still be triggered. With regard to the Greenland Ice sheet, significant parts of the ice sheet survived the Eemian interglacial. Given that, it is certainly possible that significant parts of the ice sheet would survive if CO2 levels were maintained at 400 ppm, at least for the next few thousand years. That is still consistent with a very substantive melt of the GIS and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet leading to sea level rises of the order of 8 meters over the coming centuries. -
John Hartz at 10:45 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
@John Cook Suggest that you add "of Australia" to the title of this post and provide an introductory "set-up" paragraph. Many SkS readers do not reside in Australia and are not on top of what is happening "Down Under" re the politics of climate change. Also explain what the "The Conversation" is. -
John Hartz at 10:38 AM on 15 June 2011Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community
Why did the signatories decide to take collective action now? -
Bern at 09:53 AM on 15 June 2011The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
Thanks for the article, Chris - I haven't had a chance to read it in detail, but a quick perusal answered a few questions I had. I especially like the graph of emitted IR from Venus - it tells quite a story! -
KR at 09:28 AM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Moderators - Apologies for the heavy HTML 'shouting' in my previous post. I'm just a bit ticked/appalled at such a transparent falsehood, especially when it can be so easily checked. -
KR at 09:22 AM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol - "The Australian Climate Science Coalition, though, is not in any way connected to the AEF or to the IPA." OK, I'm going to have to call "bull exudation" on that, John. Australian Environment Foundation PO Box 274 DEAKIN WEST ACT 2600 Australia Telephone Max Rheese on 03 5762 6883 Australian Climate Science Coalition PO Box 274 Deakin West ACT 2600 Australia Max Rheese Executive Director Phone: 03 5762 6883 You share a PO box and phone number with the AEF? Both organizations have Max Rheese as the Executive Director and primary contact? And you claim they are not connected??? Pull the other one, John, it's got bells on... You represent an advocacy group directly tied to the AEF, which was created and funded by the IPA. Moderators - I hate to say it, but this post is either flatly deceptive, or the product of someone who doesn't know the very organization he calls home. -
Albatross at 09:22 AM on 15 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
With all due respect Sphaerica, and with an understanding of your frustration having to deal with repeat obfuscators, I do not think using words like 'grenades" and terrorism" are productive or advised. -
John Russell at 08:56 AM on 15 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
@Dikran - 66: I suggested one possible defensive form Dr Jones' answer could have taken, back on comment 32. I'm not a scientist, but I'll bet there are a dozen of your colleagues on here who could produce any number of honest replies to that question that would have been much more difficult for those in denial to exploit. Maybe they would like to take that as a challenge if you like: what would have been a better, but equally honest answer from Phil Jones? The key point is not to start by saying you agree. That's a very simple rule when answering questions that can be considered hostile and you'll hear politicians using that technique all the time. Protecting your answer against misuse might be gamesmanship, but it's not dishonest. -
Bob Lacatena at 08:15 AM on 15 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
31, Eric The Red, You grossly misrepresented Latif and Keenlyside's work, you were wrong, and it represents a huge mistake on your part. Admit it, and move on. Trying to argue your position is evidence of nothing but total and complete denial on your part, and nothing more.
Prev 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 Next
