Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 Next
Comments 82951 to 83000:
-
John Hartz at 00:02 AM on 14 June 2011SkS Weekly Digest #3
@John Cook: To be most effective, the Weekly Digest should be distributed as a stand-alone email on Sunday. How feasible is it to let readers choose between subscribing to the Daily Digest, the Weekly Digest, or both? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:51 PM on 13 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
As an example, he pointed to record heat waves in Europe in 2003 that killed 40,000 people. Please take a look - what really happened in 2003 and 2006 - when - especially in Europe - have been heat waves. Global and regional temperatures, SOI, were significantly lower than in the years, "neighbors " - especially in the SH was cold. We had a La Nina with rapid beginning. In Europe, hot summers 2003 and 2006 were preceded by a very cold winter ... -
Ken Lambert at 23:45 PM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol #18 A reasonable question. (-Moderation complaints snipped-). The targets are the 3/100 of climate scientists who disagree with (-Ideology snipped-) AGW. The usual targets - Christy, Spencer, Lindzen and anybody who publishes in E&E. (-Moderation complaints snipped-). One wonders why the publishers of site have to keep bashing Christy, Spencer, Lindzen and anybody who publishes in E&E. (-Ideology snipped-).Response:[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.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.
-
Bob Lacatena at 23:32 PM on 13 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
michael sweet, You should probably amend your text with the image, to highlight the point of chuckbot's confusion. I imagine many people will find their eyes drawn naturally to the white snow as the comparative indicator, not realizing that it's the red/purple sea ice concentrations that are the focus, or that the 1980 image simply lacked representations of snow cover. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:30 PM on 13 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Oh. Snowfall didn't exist on the images in 1980, which is probably why that looks like there is none... it's there, just not in the pictures, so its impossible to compare. I don't know when they started to track it on these pics (they only say "most recent dates"). But if you go to Cryosphere Today and do your own comparisons with more recent years, you'll also see that the snow cover is greatly reduced this year, and was in fact one of the first signs of things being worse this year, back when it was still too early in the season for sea ice concentrations to vary by much. To look at snow cover as well as snow anomalies, and over the entire northern hemisphere, try The Global Snow Lab (Rutgers University). Just follow the links. There are lots of cool tools. In particular, look at the anomalies for March (i.e. the consistent onset of earlier spring melt due to climate change). -
Riccardo at 23:22 PM on 13 June 2011It's too hard
As a european who lived in the US for a while, this is one of the first things I noticed, the way they use energy and resources in general. In a few words, they just don't care, they use them as if they are infinite and cheap. Europe is just a bit better, or less bad if you wish. Still, we consume about half as the average american. Then, if by "stop living" batvette means "stop living the way we do", i.e. wasting huge amounts of energy and resources, I agree. I dare to ask americans in first place, but not just them of course, to stop wasting, a first easy and reasonable step. We're heading to the open ocean with not enough fuel and food supplies, it's not going to be safe nor pleasant. -
dhogaza at 23:04 PM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Given that Steve McIntrye's still "auditing" a paper published in the late 90s, you do have to wonder why he's not "audited" S&C's work from the same era, though, don't you? :) -
dhogaza at 23:03 PM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Actually, #27, the algebraic sign error was a blunder not related to uncertainty in how to build such a reconstruction, etc. I believe that thinks like their mistaken correction for drift was more subtle, but something professional satellite jockeys knew how to do. Others of the errors are probably more as you describe them. Things like algebraic blunders aren't uncommon but as you say, the fact that all their errors appear to have biased in the same direction does speak to "ideological blunders". They were convinced the world wasn't warming, set out to prove it, and were blind to errors that once corrected showed their belief to be incorrect. -
michael sweet at 22:08 PM on 13 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
They compare heat to a 1981-1999 baseline. If they compared to say 1900-1920 it might have already shifted into a new regime. In their conclusions they say: "actual GHG emissions over the early 21st century have exceeded those projected in the SRES scenario used here (Raupach et al. 2007), suggesting that our results could provide a conservative projection of the timing of permanent emergence of an unprecedented heat regime" -
Norman at 21:10 PM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
DB, Here is the part of the article that generated my line of posting (as well as your video). From article: "Another common denial argument is that ''climate has always changed in the past''. For the past 8000 years we have been in a stable climate. Society has never lived through the degree of climate change we are now causing. Bushfires can also be natural yet we don't dismiss the existence of arson. What most deniers conveniently overlook is that Australia is a nation at great risk from climate change. We are the driest inhabited continent in the world. Doing nothing about climate change will end up costing us far more than taking action such as instituting a carbon price." My research was to determine the validity of this statement and it is a common denial argument. I started to research climate of the past 8000 years and shorter term extreme weather events to see if we really have never lived through this level of climate change. That is why I felt it was the correct thread to post this discussion upon. -
CBDunkerson at 20:53 PM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Bern, my understanding is that the various issues that Spencer and Christy got wrong were mostly items that were 'uncertain' at the time. That is, creation of such a satellite temperature record had never been done before so the potential errors and methods of correcting for them were unknown. Thus, they basically made their 'best guess' on various issues which could bias the results either way. The fact that their choices consistently resulted in cooling adjustments (some of which have subsequently proved out) IS rather telling, but I think it speaks to ideological blinders rather than deliberate skullduggery. All of the things they got wrong were reasonable mistakes to make... at the time. As subsequent study and analysis has proved each to be incorrect they have eventually made corrections. That said, last I heard they were still disputing the diurnal correction adjustments. -
les at 19:52 PM on 13 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
30 - batvett "I don't think I need to produce evidence to prove common sense now, do I?" It makes me want to quote Rene DescartesCommon sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.
And the point out that, stating something is "common sense" doesn't make it true. You have to show show much hardship is "in the name of conservation" as opposed to policy on home ownership, deregulation etc. contributing to the financial turn-down. How about other factors like demand on oil from China, instability in Arabia and north Africa leading to higher oil prices and therefor higher production cots etc.? You have to show how many people are not going to the movies due to "the environment" as opposed to the explosion in home entertainment (download/postal delivery movies, gaming etc.) In fact you have to argue how climate contributes, in what proportion, to the current state of the economy; and "well, it's common sense" doesn't cut it. -
adelady at 19:16 PM on 13 June 2011It's too hard
Sorry I omitted this. batvette's full comment can be found over at "Climategate conspiracy" -
adelady at 18:58 PM on 13 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
I've responded to this comment over at "too hard". -
adelady at 18:55 PM on 13 June 2011It's too hard
batvette "Most humans make their livelihood engaged in one form of human industrial activity or another. Telling people they have to stop living, and it really is that brutally simple, to save the earth... how do you think they'll take that?" Just read the advanced version of this post. You'll notice that it requires quite a bit of ' industrial activity' to achieve the aims. We don't have to stop living, we have to change the way we do things - mostly the same things. We do not have to don sackcloth and live in caves gnawing on uncooked tubers. We can live in carbon neutral homes and work in carbon neutral businesses producing carbon neutral goods or services. With any luck some of those 'neutral' activities will actually be carbon negative - a great boon. What's 'not living' about a properly insulated home serviced by solar PV and an electric powered car- which handily acts as a battery for a distributed power grid? Sure we should be less wasteful with food and no-one needs 100 pairs of shoes nor houses the current size built in Australia. The advertising industry need not die either, they just advertise quality and improved products and lifestyle rather than foolish acquisition of more and more pointless stuff. This 'telling people they have to stop living' silliness is the very worst kind of alarmism. -
batvette at 17:11 PM on 13 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
I don't believe the discussion is about comparison of lifestyles between citizens of different regions of the world, though any competant sociologist, geographer, or citizen who can analyze a map, can tell you that the United States and Europe have completely different topographies and urban/suburban living arrangements. Much of which should be evident with the single term "Interstate Highway System" which began originally as the Pershing map in 1921, but was officially implemented as policy by Eisenhauer in the 1950's. (ironically it was his experience with the Autobahn System in Germany in WW2 that caused him to see the benefit of such a system in the US for national defense). As someone who rides a bicycle many more miles a year than I drive a car, I do lament the unfriendly nature of our car culture toward more green transportation. I am realistic enough to understand why it is however. I doubt that we are alone in seeing a culture of conservation replacing a culture of consumption eventually causing economic hardship- surely Europe will see it as well, though it will be less of a shock than it is here. Most humans make their livelyhood engaged in one form of human industrial activity or another. Telling people they have to stop living, and it really is that brutally simple, to save the earth... how do you think they'll take that? To be transparant I am not a contrarian or denier but I'm not 100% sold on the consensus either. Many of us "fencers" speak in percentages, I'm 80/20 that it is warming, 50/50 that it's human caused/could we arrest it with current sociology trends such as the industrialization of India and China. In that respect I think we've already passed that point of no return long ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/09/annual_bp_energy_survey/ I would ask why there is not an uproar that it appears the Kyoto protocol was not only ineffective but probably has facilitated this global GGE increase? Something to do with that talk about "climate justice" or "carbon equity"? -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:08 PM on 13 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
I was able to download the pdf file, thanks for the link. Having suffered and survived (just) record extreme heat during 2009 IMO more attention to extremes is very useful. It's the extremes that get you more than the mean. Home air conditioners often don't work in extreme heat. People don't work either, especially when it's humid as well and your internal body temperature rises too high and you've no way of sweating it out. That's leaving aside the effect on crops, rainfall or lack of, power supplies that give up the ghost along with public transport etc - all of which has happened already in my home state during the heat waves of a couple of years ago. (Under Fig 1 there seems to be a typo - 20th Century when I think they mean 21st Century - if it's not too late to correct.) -
Bern at 16:14 PM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
chris: you're telling us that Christy & Spencer made no less than five significant errors in their analysis, and that every single one 'just happened' to skew the answer towards indicating that the globe was cooling instead of warming? If they were genuine errors, surely you'd expect at least one of them to, perhaps, be on the warm side, rather than the cool. What are the odds of a climate skeptic making five genuine fundamental errors of analysis, with all five favouring their decidedly minority point of view? I guess it could be a sort of self-reinforcement, where they saw the answers that came out, and said to themselves "Hey, those numbers look really good!", rather than "Hey, those numbers are different to what everyone else in the world is getting, maybe we'd better double-check our analysis..." -
adelady at 15:39 PM on 13 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
bv "...we have indeed been questioning every bit of our lifestyles..." So how do Europeans manage the same standard of living, including holidays, but produce only half the CO2 emissions of US citizens? -
John Cook at 15:32 PM on 13 June 2011SkS Weekly Digest #3
Note: I've just done the programming for the Daily Digest - so at the start of each day (eg - midnight Australia time), we'll start sending out an email summarising the posts from the previous day. So right now, subscribers should start receiving the summary for Sunday (featuring just Dana's post on John Christy). The reason for this is two-fold. Firstly, the number of blog posts on SkS seems to be on the rise so getting multiple emails per day was getting a bit much for some subscribers. Secondly (and this was what got me off my butt to do the reprogramming), my webhost complained about me sending out so many emails at one time so I've had to reprogram how the mail-outs function. -
batvette at 15:26 PM on 13 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Tom is there any particular reason you chose to include those last two untasteful comments which were clearly directed at my person, which even preempt any opportunity to offer such evidence? I'm not even sure I want to engage someone who seems to be here not to discuss the principals of this issue but seems so willing to pounce on someone criticizing them. However back to the matter of Michael Mann and the Penn State review board, I don't know either way about Mann's actions, but it jumps out at me that the University itself would have the integrity of its science dept under fire for for allowing Mann to be inbvolved with any impropriety like this and would have every reason to try and protect their own- for this reason an "independent review" is almost always called for, not an "internal review" which is what seems to have been what went down here. I don't think I need to produce evidence to prove common sense now, do I? Neither on that or the economic hardships that have been and will continue as a result of sacrifices made by people in the name of conservation. In case you hadn't noticed, the US handily transformed its economy into a service and consumption based economic model by the turn of the millenium, and we have indeed been questioning every bit of our lifestyles and being told that any unnecessary energy use is going to cause irreperable harm and be a burden upon our children. People aren't going to the movies, they rethink that trip on summer vacation. Are you going to argue this is not one of if not the primary factors why our economy is in such trouble? Are we shocked we were selling a message and people actually may have been listening? -
chuckbot at 15:03 PM on 13 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Thanks - I think I am getting distracted by the snowfall; the rectangles highlighting the differences help a lot. -
adelady at 14:28 PM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Norman, your issue with localised extreme effects of what you describe as a "small" increase in average global temperature is nicely illustrated by this other GISS product. Northern latitudes are much, much more affected than the other two regions displayed. The fact that seasonal changes in the Arctic are also pretty drastic is not the point. Is it different from before? If so, is it getting more or less congenial for the plants, animals and people who rely on this region? And about 40 other questions which spring immediately to my mind. Blocking 'patterns'? We've had a couple of incredible consequences of extended blocking events, Pakistan/ Russia obviously. The possibilities are endless. These may be simple exceptional events. They may be related to Arctic melt. Or the first indicators of a new trend. Or an aberration related to an impending extreme La Nina. There is no way - yet - to know which of these or any other explanations may apply. The one thing we do know. A warmer ocean, a warmer atmosphere, more moisture, less ice will combine to produce more unusual weather effects more often. Which particular effects will have more impact in which regions we won't know for certain until the trends or 'patterns' show up in the numbers. My own view is that we have quite enough numbers already, even if we lack the wit to discern some of the patterns clearly. The glacier, Arctic sea ice and ocean acidifcation, heatwave and flood numbers are quite enough for me. -
Tom Curtis at 13:48 PM on 13 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
batvette @28, the initial review at Penn State was conducted by the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School; Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, and Director of the Office for Research Protections, Research Integrity Officer. In other words, it was an inquiry by Michael Mann's boss, his bosses boss, and the chief ethical officer of the university. Now, unless you are suggesting the unusual idea that a persons boss should never have a role in disciplinary actions with regard to their employees, there could hardly have been more suitable people to make such an inquiry. However, as you are not only suggesting that they are unsuitable, but implying that they are involved in a cover up, perhaps you can present your evidence for what would be professional misconduct on their behalf. You will further notice that on the one matter on which the initial panel made no firm decision, they appointed a five person panel, all of whom where professors and/or heads of departments, and none of whom came from Michael Mann's own department. In other words, they were people who had the necessary knowledge and experience to judge the case but who were by any reasonable standard, independent. Again, your suggestion of a cover up implies professional misconduct by this panel. Do you have any evidence to suggest that professional misconduct - or do you think slanderous allegations require no evidence any time a panel disagrees with you? Finally, you make allegations about the harm being caused by the so far minimal and ineffective action being taken against global warming in Western nations. Babies, apparently, are going hungry because of anti-global warming policies. Frankly, I think that factoid was simply made up. But I'm open to persuasion, show me the evidence of babies being left hungry, indeed starving ("empty bellies") because of anti-AGW policies. In the absence of such evidence (on all three counts), two things will be obvious: 1) Your demand for open access to relevant information is for you a purely tactical demand which you have no wish to comply with yourself; and 2) You think the way to debate is to simply make up "facts" that suite your case. -
Norman at 13:46 PM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Sorry my images did not work. I will send links... GISS January 2011. GISS February 2011. GISS March 2011. GISS April 2011. These links show a drastic change in surface temperature in the arctic regions in a period of 4 months. Was this switch due to the fact the globe has warmed 0.8 C in 100 years and it makes these wild fluctuations or it this just a normal cycle? Given time I could generate a GISS map for every month and look for overall patterns in how temperature moves around and see if blocking patterns that create heat waves in localized areas are a new phenomena that has only started to happen or it is part of the random fluctuations one sees with a temp difference of several degrees from pole to equator.Response:[DB] "Given time I could generate a GISS map for every month"
If you do, please do not post them here. If you have a point (see my response to your previous comment), make it. Supposing correlations using Eyecrometers without any real analyis is not part of the aegis of this forum. If that is your wish, please seek a different venue for it.
Feel free also to write up your point in proper scientific fashion and submit it to a peer-reviewed publication.
-
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Norman, the predictions from the models regarding extremes in flooding etc can be found here. Note especially 10.3.6.1 for the papers on why this is expected. -
Norman at 13:35 PM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
adelady, From the graphs it does appear flooding is increasing in Europe. But is that because the globe is warmer? The hypothesis is not a bad one...warmer temperatures over water allow for more evaporation which will fall as more rain, but is that the cause? Today the North pole is just above 32F while in Texas it was 108F a 76F difference. Weather is driven by a natural pattern to balance this difference. Cold air is heavy and dense and will push under the lighter warmer air. This causes the natural circulation for cold northern air to move south and visa versa. It is why the poles do not get so cold as they would in winter (no insolation) or the equator does not get so hot. This huge difference can cause massive temp swings. One day can be 20F above normal and the next few days can be the same temp below normal. Omaha Nebraska June temps with graph to demonstrate temperature extreme fluctuations. This article on the jet stream shows how dips in the stream can cause colder than normal in one area and warmer in adjacent areas" Images from GISS to demonstrate extremes as they move about, mostly look at the Arctic region. Greenland is very warm in January and Siberia is the cold spot, by April the pattern has totally shifted.Response:[DB] Before I take the time to try and fix your graphs, Norman, what is your point? The topic of this post is "There's no room for a climate of denial". Struggling to follow your thread of conversation, I see no real point other than a stance by you that any warming currently happening is part of a natural cycle or "It's not us". Which are the subjects of different posts.
Out of deference to adelady and scaddenp, I'll leave this up to give you the chance to reply.
-
dhogaza at 13:34 PM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
"I notice he publishes quite a bit in Energy and Environment, unlike most climate scientists" Not to mention other scientists, in particular those dealing with environmental issues. How shocking :) -
batvette at 13:06 PM on 13 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Re: A Pennsylvania State U. Board clearing Michael Mann of wrongdoing: In other news, A review board of Exxon stockholders and tanker captains has cleared Exxon Valdez captain Joseph Hazelwood of any wrongdoing, adding "environmental damage was minimal, and birds and fish in the region can just "get over" any ill effects and the oil may actually help them fly and swim faster". Facetious, well sure. What else when I'm reading these kind of arguments for a rebuttal? "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community". And told I'm supposed to just forget about it, instead of ask why we aren't looking at the conduct of more of these people? You're asking everyone in an industrialized nation to feel horrible about getting in a car and going to work and earning a living. Whole segments of our economies are based on such things, people are going bankrupt and putting their babies to sleep at night with empty tummies. If these people have misled anyone it should not be swept under the rug.Response:[DB] If you are implying something untoward, I would remind you of the Comments Policy here at SkS.
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.
-
batvette at 12:48 PM on 13 June 2011Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were ignored
I think the "nothing at all to see here" nature of the rebuttal here is disingenuous in light of the objective purity expected and defended of science. The failure to meet FOIA requests is not at all solely based upon judgements by Phil Jones the requests were of a frivolous nature, as if they were all meant to waste their time which would better be spent on research. From the Inquiry by the House of Commons:(from the wiki page on the CRU emails controversy) "The committee criticised a "culture of non-disclosure at CRU" and a general lack of transparency in climate science where scientific papers had usually not included all the data and code used in reconstructions." " The report added that "scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics." Stonewall their critics- these included people who wished to see all the data they used, and see if they could find errors in it which invalidated the work. If Jones intended to block this scrutiny, and in in the emails he used language to the effect saying FOIA requesters would only use the data to cast their work in doubt- how does this follow the scientific method or allow checks and balances? It's funny the rebuttal concludes with a statement about the mountain of evidence not being explained away by the behaviour of a few individuals. The inquiry also concluded: "There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists". Perhaps they are saying if we could review the emails of all climate change researchers we'd find similar willful obstruction of scrutiny of their work? The behaviour of a few individuals is all we have the luxury of reviewing. Despite a whitewashing and the fact that most of the emails showed nothing and their work may be actually sound, a few of them did reveal intent to taint peer review and withhold data. Those pushing the more urgent position of AGW would do well to not pretend they see nothing, and instead of claim it's science and can't be flawed by human fault, admit science is only as good as the men behind it. -
adelady at 11:54 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
scaddenp, that SoD item is brilliant! Not so much the post itself (I'm a fully paid up skip-the-equations club member), but the answers to questions in the comments are fantastically clear and straightforward. Anyone wanting to understand the difference between the 'what' of the adiabatic lapse rate and the 'why' of the adiabatic lapse rate can do no better than look at this. -
adelady at 11:30 AM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Thank you for this Norman. I went looking for info from Munich Re and, somehow, got to the general info for the EU. Some great maps, graphs and all sorts of fascinating stuff. Very, very hard to get anything prior to 1970, but have a look at this one giving flood events, and related deaths, since 74. (Don't bother with the 'older versions' link. It doesn't go any further back, the newer versions just add in recent events.) -
scaddenp at 11:17 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Just as side-issue, Science of Doom has a piece on Gilbert 2010 published by E&E. This is a real howler which would give some idea about the standards of "peer review" (of denialers by denielers) there. -
KR at 11:12 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonicol - I've noticed that many of the scientifically qualified skeptics (Lindzen, Spencer, and Christy high on that list) will make ridiculous statements in interviews, in opinion pieces, etc. Not in the peer reviewed literature, although Lindzen (with his LC11 paper) appears to be an exception to that. These opinion pieces are not peer reviewed, but acquire status from the reputations of the originators, primary examples of the Argument from Authority fallacy. -
Norman at 10:25 AM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
#76 Tom Curtis, Your quote "You, of course, would have us believe that that had nothing to do with the record Sea Surface Temperatures around Australia at the time; and that those record Sea Surface Temperatures had nothing to do with global warming." I would not have you believe any such thing. I do not have enough available information to make any statement one way or the other. I am questioning that global warming is the cause but I am not stating it isn't. I did some research and you may have a good point with your Australia flooding... World record rain events. Rainfall amounts in the 2010-2011 Australian floods. Australian Ocean temp anomaly in 1979. The 1979 Australian temp anomaly for January does so ocean temps about 1 C above normal. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 10:23 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
That last comment was from SouT. Don't know what happened to my name or post number. Is there a glitch?Response:[DB] An earlier comment had an html coding glitch, which I fixed.
-
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 10:21 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
I've looked more closely and Christy does publish quite a lot. I notice he publishes quite a bit in Energy and Environment, unlike most climate scientists. -
scaddenp at 10:02 AM on 13 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Your point of "confiscation of property of FF investors" seems something of an exaggeration. Until the market begins to adapt, there are no losses. As carbon demand goes down, then so should reinvestment levels, just like I imagine happened to investors in say pagers, or maybe blacksmiths with introduction to auto. Why should FF investors be protected anyway but not those in say fishing, seaside property or any other adversely affected by global warming? -
Norman at 10:02 AM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
77 Albatross, I looked at all the abstracts you linked to. Not enough for me to switch my view at this time. I am not closed minded. I like the information you provide and will always consider it. Do you think the links I send are flawed information because they are not in peer reviewed magazines? -
Tom Curtis at 10:00 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
jonnicol @18, this should help, although I can't help but feel you would have found what you asked for (which may not be what you are looking for) had you followed the numerous links in the article. -
Norman at 09:59 AM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
#72 skywatcher, I thank you for the links. The Stu Ostro report was very interesting but very similar to the video Daniel Bailey posted. It takes many extreme events around the world. My problem is I can't find enough data on weather related disasters (on the Net) for 1954 to develop a case. I would probably have to go to the library and dig up microfilm records of papers and magazines of that year...way too time consuming. -
Tom Curtis at 09:55 AM on 13 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Oslo @5, that link only takes me to a reproduction of the first page of the article, ie, the abstract plus one paragraph. Registering with Springer-link seems to make no difference. However, from publicly accessible material: actually thoughtful @4, Diffenbaugh and Scherer used the CMIP3 climate model, and reproduce information from that model in their figures. They may also have used other models. In the graphs linked below they show the modelled (black) and observed (black dashed) probability density function for differences between mean and maximum temperatures in the 1980-1999 period, which should give some idea of empirical fit. WheelsOC @1, from the graphs of the probability density function of regional areas, it is evident that there is far more variability in temperature in mid latitude regions (China, North America, Mediterranian, Southern Africa) than there is in tropical regions (India, S E Asia, Northern South America, Central Africa). This is true in both JJA and DJF. The greater range in temperatures means a greater warming is required before the minimum temperatures consistently exceed the maximum temperatures. Consequently this study is probably consistent with previous studies showing greater mean warming outside the tropics. -
jonicol at 09:44 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
It would be nice to see somewhere in this site or on an acceeible link given here, the scientific refutations of the work of Lindzen Spencer and Christy. Nothing above tells us anything at all about the science being criticised. Somewhere, apart from the list of inaccessible papers, there should be a clear review article which other interested scientists who are retired or who no longer have easy access to a science/university library. Statements such as "After hearing Christy make erroneous and political rather than scientific statements on Australian Radio.." only makes the denouncement of his work less plausible. "Political" is difficult to interpret or quantify, but you should be able to substantiate with a few words and/or with reference to an easily accesible detailed, scientific argument, which does not need to be "peer reciewed" since the readers should have enough scientific understanding to judge it, but shows clearly why Christie's scientific statemnts are "erroneous".Response:[dana1981] This is a summary post. As Tom Curtis notes in #19, Christy's specific claims are addressed in the posts linked within the article. Or you could try clicking the Christy Crocks button, which has a tab listing all the posts pertaining to Christy.
-
JMurphy at 09:26 AM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Norman wrote : "what would interest me is mechanisms to explain how a small increase in global temps will lead to extreme climate events (more heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires...). This is the part of the science I am interested in. The forces that make a sustained drought. Texas has a very bad drought condition. How did the 0.8 C degree Global temp increase cause this and sustain it?" Question (and answer) 9 at this link should help you. -
adelady at 09:09 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
sout "He doesn't appear to do any research into the forces or impacts on climate." He's a scientist alright. But he seems to be hampered by other concerns so he's not free to go where the evidence should take him. I think of him as a musician sentimentally attached to an instrument which has lost the capacity to change key. He's perfectly capable of playing any piece of music, but he won't, because he refuses to replace or repair the only instrument he's willing to use. -
scaddenp at 08:42 AM on 13 June 2011There's no room for a climate of denial
Eric, US is 2% of earth area. I believe the sky was pointing you to global records. -
oslo at 08:37 AM on 13 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
I have been informed by Stanford (to be precise, Woods Institute for the Environment) that the full report is available online at http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2371617777412kp/ Comments made so far can perhaps be revised after reading the full online article. -
scaddenp at 08:15 AM on 13 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
By the way, I hope CATO and other libertarian groups are loudly in favour the proposals to scrap fossil fuel subsidies. I would have thought subsidies of any kind an anathema to the right but so far that doesnt seem to be the case? (I only support subsidies on education and health). Killing any form of subsidy on fossil fuel is surely the simplest way to start. -
scaddenp at 08:11 AM on 13 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
“I am simply frustrated by your apparent lack of willingness to adapt.” Eric, there is deeper issue here which is why I keep pressing. Firstly, your “adapt” stance appears to imply that you think it is reasonable for you to enjoy the benefits while other people pay the cost? Seriously? The right wing here do a lot of complaining about paying (tax) for other people’s benefit (education/health subsidies) and I doubt it is different in US. So surely the principle of paying for the adaption is acceptable? More importantly, you have stated in later post your reasons for opposition to carbon tax – I am trying to find an alternative to carbon tax which is more acceptable hence I am interested in possibilities that result from (legal) avoidance of liability and how conflict of rights is managed. You have so far avoided these questions. Remember that the hypothetical situation is what is “libertarian way” if convinced that cost of adaption will be higher than cost of mitigation. Denying that it could ever be possible isnt helping. You claim frustration about lack of specifics of cost and effects. Well the scientific consensus (as opposed to the Greenpeace version) on effects of climate change is found in IPCC WG2. Surely it’s perfectly clear there though regarded as excessively conservative by climate scientists. A costing of these effects is in Stern report. The costings have been criticized but I know of no better attempts that didn’t also assume (with no scientific basis) that WG2 was alarmist instead of conservative. One big problem is that this is area of science with least certainty. Policy must be made on imperfect knowledge. “OTOH, I agree the free market is far from perfect.” So do I. What I want is effective solutions. In many situations, a free or near free market provides them. When they don’t I look for alternatives rather than demanding some philosophical purity. How come an imperfect market is acceptable but an imperfect tax isn’t? (Don’t bother with that, I know the answer). Your answer here appears to be that if everyone was as wealthy as you, then there wouldn’t be a problem. (Or hope it is rather "I'm all right Jack, dont bother me"). Can everyone be as wealthy as you? In Bangladesh, population density is 11 per hectare for instance. Does the world have that much resource? It’s easy to create a political narrative using Haiti or other countries as examples – the problem is really ineffective government and overcoming the real barriers to changing that is not a simple task. Saying that a democratic rule of law with free market is the answer is easy – making it happen is not. “So I have to ask you, since your wealth came from the market, why won't you use your wealth to adapt?” I have no choice. What I resent is paying for a problem I have little responsibility for. Responsibility for this problem can be seen here here. “Why won't you promote the economic freedom needed to create that wealth in countries like Bangladesh. If you don't think that is feasible, why won't you give a small portion of your wealth to private relief organizations?” I do both, and not that small a portion either. “we don't talk about the airport anymore”. You are implying that I was overestimating the cost of adaption. The technological and monetary challenge is in fact enormous and I am not sure it would ever be built. Abandonment seems more likely. I pointed that out because fixating on airport rather than transport corridors was inappropriate. This method fixes all three and preserves land. Returning to original inquiry, so far the answer is bleak. It seems that even if we knew emissions would kill us, there is no libertarian way to limit emissions. I am still interested though in exploring the questions of resolving conflict of rights and legal responsibility. -
madmike at 07:39 AM on 13 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Glad you all like my post, the principle issue at stake is climate sensitivity, which from current records is low, as massive climate change has still not happened. Climate sensitivity is only high when, ice albedo is dominant, or when atmospheric albedo is affected by external events. Current CO2 levels of @ 400 ppm mean that sensitivity will remain low until a cataclysmic external input, and effectively means that the current glacial has ended. James Lovelock was right and GAIA is the dominant climate driver. Mad MikeResponse:[dana1981 Wrong. See Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected.
Prev 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 Next
