Recent Comments

Prev  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  Next

Comments 83651 to 83700:

83651. Jigoro Kano at 06:29 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dana1981 @ 320 you said: "Denying" a falsehood doesn't qualify as denial. In other words; Denial is in the eye of of the accuser.
       Response:

       [dana1981] No, a denier denies facts.  You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

83652. Eric (skeptic) at 06:25 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       dhogaza, I posted those graphs to find out if someone would explain why GISS is lower in the early 80's (and/or higher at present) and could explain the monthly spikes in GISS.
83653. Eric (skeptic) at 06:22 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, sorry I didn't see your question (in 292) until now. I am ideologically driven as you say, so I cannot simply compare costs. There are lots of problems with restricting trade including black markets and economic distortions. For example, people might burn an apple tree for heating fuel. How are supposed to know not to do that without an economic signal for the relative value of future apples and present fuel? Would we want the government to take control of all apple trees? I don't see how a tariff of the scale needed to offset the export of our CO2 production would be anything other than a nightmare, way too high to not create huge black markets and a very large and corrupt government. I think other libertarians would agree oppose a very large tariff. The only way to stop the black market and other ill effects would be a world government that would be a complete anathema to libertarians. I would propose the alternative that I learned in the 80's in my brief stint as an environmentalist: think globally, act locally. You complained (post 279) about the expense of building a seawall or moving your local airport yet thinking globally would preclude having your own large convenient airport. How about having a small airport to connect you to some other large airport? I don't need an airport, why do you?
83654. Albatross at 06:20 AM on 5 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Eric, You agreed @29 to "keep it at that". So please cease with the games and with misrepresenting position on the CRU and the role of ENSO in modulating global SATs. Take that kind of nonsense elsewhere. We are all ears should you happen to have any thoughts on the post/topic at hand: "Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)"
83655. scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Jigoro - is few % drop in CO2 from engine efficiency (which also requires worldwide car ownership to be static) the best you can do for emission control consistent with your polical values? Come on please, I asked for effective emission reduction. My issue here is that if you can't come up with an effective scheme within your values, then I can only conclude that your "skepticism" is rationalization for doing nothing.
83656. dhogaza at 06:04 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric (skeptic) it would help if you actually read other posts, such as skywalker's, and even better it would help if you actually read serious analysis such as that offered by tamino (a professional statistician who specializes in time-series analysis) and linked by skywalker.
83657. garethman at 06:00 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica at 04:41 AM on 5 June, 2011 dhogaza, Other interesting examples of the word... google each of them... Asbestos Denialism Vaccine Denialism (and Vaccine Skeptics -- get that? They already grabbed the word "skeptics," too) Can anyone think of others? Many thanks for your quotes and suggestions. Most of them are new to me and most of my friends and family, I must lead a sheltered life. The use of this term is interesting as I guess it’s the new heresy, if something is 95% correct, so no-one can ever discuss whether or not it is 100% correct, because they will then be termed as “denialisr” or “heretic” or some equally aggressive and derogatory term. Lets be honest about this, I think many of the dissenters are wrong and politically motivated, and I will fight for the truth, but I will also fight for their right to an opinion. If what I see is condemnation in the most aggressive way against anyone who has an idea which goes against accepted thought, (regardless of how muddle headed or wrong that opinion is) then I suspect we may be moving towards a dark age in scientific thought which is deeply worrying. To never allow dissenting opinion is a form of denialism in itself, the mirror image of the other side. The people of autocratic governments understand this principle, but I suspect here in the west in our search for climate action, we are forgetting basic human rights, and one of those critical rights is the right to be wrong without being pilloried and condemned. And that is the worst form of denial, the denial of human rights.
83658. Jigoro Kano at 06:00 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica @ 317 How about: Denying the harmful impact "Green" policies have on developing countries. Denying the harmful impact "Green" policies will have on the indigent in western countries. Denying economic powerhouses like Russia, China, Brazil care little about AGW. Denying Spain's "Green" revolution has financially deviated that country. Denying the impossibility of engineering a product such that it can have 240 W input and generate a 390 W output. (I know mod...2nd law thread)
       Response:

       [dana1981] Most of your examples here are simply wrong.  For example, see the rebuttals to Renewable energy investment kills jobs and CO2 limits will hurt the poor.  "Denying" a falsehood doesn't qualify as denial.

83659. actually thoughtful at 05:22 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano, I was thinking of solar thermal (hot water). But my neighbor put in PV to lock in the price of electricity. He is thinking about retirement and looking to reduce his risks. The power company promised him no rate increases for 20 years if he allowed them to put the panels on his roof. I don't know where the panels were made, there are US panel manufacturers - Schott (Alb, NM) First Solar (Phoenix, AZ), Solarworld (CA) - many others. The Germans and other European countries manufacturer much what is used in the solar industry. I have to use German manufacturers for my controls and pumps as American manufacturers are not up to my standards. I do have American manufacturing for all of my solar (thermal) panels. The copper pipe usually comes from Mexico (although copper is mined in my home state). This is "issue", too, is a canard. Your asking that question suggests you would be in favor a global environmental standard. Interesting idea. PV carbon footprint - the embodied energy payback is less than 2 years. This has been questioned and studied to death. Why are you bringing it up in 2011? Do your questions have an agenda, or are you genuinely not-knowledgeable about solar PV? Here is the information you could have found with less than 30 seconds if you were genuinely curious Your summary statement isn't true as you didn't bother to get your facts correct in the first place. However, it is true that "n order to go "Green" we must first pollute beyond recovery while redistributing wealth to those whom don't need it and don't care" - it is obvious that no action will be taken until the the effects of the current wealth redistribution from the workers/middle class/poor to the rich has resulted in revolutionary-levels wealth inequalities, and an environment so degraded even those who will not see will be forced to look and act. Why do you have an emotional (and factually baseless) response to renewable energy? Solar PV is the MOST expensive mainstream way of making electricity. It doesn't mean that it has no role. And the costs are going down (faster than the rates of wind and wave, and of course faster than the rates for fossil fuel, which are going UP). It's output curve is a fairly close match to the AC/factory load peak in the American Southwest. So power companies can invest in PV and avoid the cost of creating additional centralized plants that would ONLY run during the peak PV hours. You often find synchronicities like that when using renewables. For example, my solar heating customers have to "endure" warmer, more comfortable homes in the fall, early winter and early spring in order to maximize the output of their solar heating system. Bizarrely, they don't complain. Here is a simpler, more correct value judgement for you to consider: "The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES an active mitigation response." For what it is worth - I thought your negative income tax idea was very interesting, and new to me (I realized in researching it that it has been around for awhile). If what you are doing isn't working - *try something else*!
83660. Eric (skeptic) at 05:21 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       I plotted UAH and GISS after adding 0.25 to the UAH anomaly. Starting in 1979:
       
       And around 96 to the present:
       

       It's not entirely clear what to use for an offset (I used 0.25), but obviously GISS ran colder in the early 80's and/or warmer recently. Also GISS shows monthly spikes except for El Nino where UAH tends to spike above GISS.

83661. retward at 05:07 AM on 5 June 2011
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
       I think you may need to check the emisions estimates in Figure 1. The IEA figures released earlier this week, and the EIA figures, are for energy-related emissions only, and do not include sources such as cement, which account for about another gigatonne (see for isntance this paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html) I think the IPCC projections are for total human emissions of carbon dioxide, not just energy-releated emissions. I suspect that when you factor in the other emissions we are even closer to reaching the A1F1 path again.
       Response:

       [dana1981] No, I made sure to be careful about that.  The IPCC breaks down the numbers, and I used their projections for CO2 emissions from fossil fuels only.  So it's an accurate comparison, but you just have to keep in mind that the graph only plots CO2 emissions from fossil fuels/energy use.  As you note, there are other emissions sources as well.

83662. Eric the Red at 05:07 AM on 5 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Misguided? Are you going against the common perception (supported by realms of data) that El Nino years are warmed than La Nina years? I am still curious as to why you think the CRU scientists are "cheating."
83663. Yvan Dutil at 04:57 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       @Eric People have played with the dataset, with and without rural, with and without mountain, and with a without arctic station. The conclusion of all those studies is than removing those station drop the heating rate, not increasing it.
83664. Jigoro Kano at 04:48 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull @ 299 you said: "My right wing neighbor finally threw in the towel and got solar." Do you think they bought solar because of environmental concerns or because the incentives (tax money) they received? Do you think the outfit which sold the PV grid would have even bothered if not for those incentives? Were the PV panels made in US or Europe or where environmental regulations are weak, China? What is the carbon foot print of a PV panel? PV are not "Green"; they simply export the problem, and import good feelings for those concerned with AGW. For your "right-wing" neighbors, they receive monthly welfare payment in the form of subsidized electricity by all those whom have not gone "Green". It's ironic that in order to go "Green" we must first pollute beyond recovery while redistributing wealth to those whom don't need it and don't care, as you do, about AGW.
83665. Bob Lacatena at 04:41 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza, Other interesting examples of the word... google each of them...
       • Asbestos Denialism
       • Vaccine Denialism (and Vaccine Skeptics -- get that? They already grabbed the word "skeptics," too)
       Can anyone think of others?
83666. dhogaza at 04:18 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garathman: "Is the term denier used in any other forum apart from the holocaust or climate science?" At the risk of piling on, not only is the term "AIDS denialism" used (by no less an authority than Robert Gallo, for instance), but AIDS denialists have made *exactly* the same "waa waa you're accusing us of being evil like holocaust denialists" complaints against those who use it. In fact, given the fact that AIDS denialism predates what we think of as modern climate change denialism, I wouldn't be surprised if climate change denialists picked up the whining "you guys are calling us nazis" meme from them ...
83667. Bob Lacatena at 04:02 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       313, Phil, I don't think "Holocaust" when I use the term, I don't intend for that implication to be there, and I don't think anyone does. But I agree with you. I think there are striking similarities, that there is a lot to be learned from examining and contrasting the two, and that it is exactly those similarities that make deniers so sensitive to the term. They wouldn't care and they wouldn't blink otherwise. That they do care so intensely speaks volumes.
83668. Bob Lacatena at 04:00 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       310, Camburn, That's a typical denial response and tactic, and evidence of denial over skepticism. Rather than address the issue under examination, you simply launch off in another completely random direction, one where you hope you'll score some easy points. I think we should start compiling a simple, easy-to-take-and-score "Are you a denier?" quiz, so people can rate their level of denial. Denier Quiz Question Number 1:

       Do you find the term "denier" offensive?

       Denier Quiz Question Number 2:

       When a climate change topic makes you uncomfortable, or you don't have a good answer to the question at hand, do you simply, completely and totally change the subject, bringing up a separate and unrelated point in an area where you feel more confident in your knowledge?

       P.S. Camburn, of course climate is always changing. People are also always dying. Does that mean any deaths are acceptable, or that all are attributable to natural causes? Really, you could think this stuff out just a little further. Denier Quiz Question number 3:

       Are some of the issues that you cling to really rather desperate and pathetic attempts to find some weak handhold to which your denial can cling (such as the idea that the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics is violated by GHG theory, or that the temperature record is tainted by poor station sitings, or that the MWP period was warming than current temperatures, or that climate change will be good news and help plants grow, or that CO₂ is only a trace gas, or... goodness, this list is really, really long, isn't it?)?

       Denier Quiz Question Number 4:

       Do you believe there is merit in most if not all denial arguments?

       Denier Quiz Question 5:

       Is there any single aspect of climate science that you believe, or do you somehow find some reason or method do dismiss and disparage every single aspect of it, without fail?

       Give yourself 1 point for each "yes" answer. If you scored greater than zero points, congratulations; You're a denier!
83669. actually thoughtful at 03:59 AM on 5 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       "The impacts of rising sea-level are experienced through “high sea-level events” when a combination of sea-level rise, a high tide and a storm surge or excessive run-off trigger an inundation event. Very modest rises in sea-level, for example, 50 cm, can lead to very high multiplying factors – sometimes 100 times or more – in the frequency of occurrence of high sea-level events." Absolutely stunning. Even those of us who know what hit us aren't going to to know what hit us!
83670. Phil at 03:35 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       The suggestion that "climate change deniers are similar to holocaust deniers", can be looked at in (at least) two different ways. One is to consider the sorts of argument that deniers of these two concepts use to make their case, the other is to consider the moral outrage that the denial induces. One can note that these two aspects are completely orthogonal, the moral outrage at the denial of a particular thing is only dependent on the thing being denied, not on the mental gymnastics used in the denial. An example of (obnoxious to me, I hasten to add) holocaust denial can be found here. But, for me at least, this argument has striking similarities to the "world government" conspiracy that some climate change deniers propose.
83671. dhogaza at 03:35 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Especially damning is the removal of those rural satellites, a necessary step to ensure that the fake warming trend computed by GISS is reflected by an equally fake warming trend computed by UAH and RSS.
83672. garethman at 03:24 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Of course it is. Domestic violence, terminal illness, parents of disabled or delinquent children, the five stages of grief ... and any number of other circumstances find people describing others as being in denial. I suspect there is confusion between the state of being in denial, as a psychological coping mechanism, and denialist as a purely destructive maladaptive state of disbelief in a scientific or philosophical or factual stance. Other terms could include dissidents (equally applicable in some countries) insurgents, disbelievers,revolutionaries, awkward squad, the list is endless. Being on the believers side of scepticism ( ie I believe the world is warming, that we have something to do with this and we need to take action), but I think like most other people that there is still a lot we do not know regarding how dramatic this process will be. Now that makes me a self confessed skeptic and beyond the Pale for many, but also part of the majority. People who hold extreme right wing views and condemn many environmental principles from a basis of politics as opposed to science are wrong, but have a right to a belief system, regardless of how weird. They should be allowed to have that belief without the inappropriate use of labels. And if you think that should not be allowed as their belief will have negative effects on the rest of us, well I don’t see the same attention or labels given to right wing religious groups in the States who have colluded with dodgy presidents to inflict all sorts of damage on the rest of the world. If a cause is true you don’t need to insult the opposition or make grandiose claims and exaggerations. The truth and proof is the strongest weapon in such battles.
83673. actually thoughtful at 03:22 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Les @305 - not sure where you are going with your comments. My comment is simply an expansion of this point, which I made in comment #34 on page 1, and which has driven much of the debate for the next 250 so posts: The value judgement is: The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES and active mitigation response. It is a statement which removes the wiggle room that deniers love to play in. There is no wiggle room from my statement. Pro-science people are handicapped by being reasonable and rational, and we always have to admit these "terrible" things like * Yes, I and the scientific community could be SHOCKED if we were to find a here-to-for unknown natural forcing that explains climate change (the reality that the likelihood of that happening is on par with discovering a non-gravitational explanation for up and down is always glossed over by the deniers...). But real science is dis-provable, and a true skeptic acknowledges that new evidence will change their view. * Yes sensitivity COULD be on the low end of the range (but it is more likely to be on the high end). * Yes OHC measurements/SLR measurements are inadequate, so it is *possible* that the heat is leaving (although no other measurement indicates that...). * and on and on and on. The deniers have perverted the scientific process into an echo chamber for their wishful thinking regarding climate science. All of this leaves the vast majority of humanity (those who are socially intelligent, as opposed to analytically so (check out Myers-Briggs to see that ~16% of humanity is rationally intelligent)) with the ability to toddle off and think about other things, or say "well they are both right" or whatever their individual brand of denialism or kick-the-can is. But my statement: "The value judgement is: The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES and active mitigation response." allows no such mushy/muddling thinking. That action is required at the global, corporate, national AND individual level is inherent in the statement. That all these incredibly minute uncertainties exist is inherent in the statement. It really makes answering John's original question very easy - you either agree with the statement (and ARE taking action) or you are a denier. You can maintain your own personal uncertainties (any true skeptic (aka scientist) has areas they want more data/information on. For me it is OHC) but you ALSO can clearly state that the multiple lines of evidence, the vast body of scientific knowledge (has any issue, in the history of man, been studied more?) and the ethical/rational analysis of the evidence and knowledge REQUIRE action. I couldn't tell if you were trying to claim my statement was ideology, or agreeing that those who use ideology instead of rational thought are getting us into trouble. As you can see, my statement is the antidote to ideology, as it disallows the myriad pathways the ideologically driven dance around the core truth of climate science.
83674. Camburn at 03:14 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Spaerica: For myself, I am not offended by the use of the term, however, I will stand by my statement that the term brings vivid images of carnage. I think something that you have to recognize is that climate is ALWAYS changing. The question is, what changes are caused by humans, and what changes are caused by the normal variations. ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] Off-topic link snipped (which, I add, you have already posted on at least 3 other threads now).

83675. Eric (skeptic) at 02:20 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
       "This is direct observational evidence of Teleconnection. Not just climatological theory but observation." The theory of teleconnection comes from weather patterns which connect regions mainly by the jet stream. The weather those regions then becomes correlated. For example a strong jet in the western U.S. leading to a strong high in the Atlantic or any other similar combinations. There is no other theory of long distance connection that I am aware of. Since weather teleconnections are large scale weather patterns they are not part of local station temp. correlation which are due simply to local air exchange. There are many different teleconnection patterns worldwide with various amounts of persistence (esp. seasonality) and influence. Here's an example of a lake in Siberia influenced by ENSO: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3040185/
83676. Tom Curtis at 02:17 AM on 5 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       RyanStarr @13, there can be no question as to the appropriateness of including 2000-2009 instrumental data on the graph. Failing to do so when the data is available only tends to understate the modern warming contrary to the evidence. In other words, only if you have an objection to people knowing the truth about how warm the modern era is in comparison to the MWP is their any objection to including that data. Given that, unless you have substantial reasons to think Dana has misrepresented the instrumental data (and the way you have futilely flayed around seeking anything to latch a criticism on strongly suggest you do not), then your suggestions of dishonest manipulation ("a manual adjustment") are out of order. Rather than playing true to the denier stereotype, how about allowing the data to actually influence your opinion for a change?
83677. Eric (skeptic) at 02:16 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       " If this station removal was happening randomly, there is no reason to think that any effect from this would be anything other than random, not a bias." It was not random. The opposite of random is not a "wicked scheme" to introduce artificial warming, rather it is nonrandom which will introduce a mix of artificial warming and artificial cooling. Removal of rural stations can introduce a warming bias and in some cases station removal tended to be rural (e.g. the end of the Soviet Union which postdates Hansen's paper). On the flip side, rural station removal could also introduce cooling caused by local aerosols (see http://academic.engr.arizona.edu/HWR/Brooks/GC572-2004/readings/charlson.pdf)
83678. Bob Lacatena at 02:04 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       I find it more than humorous that this thread so bothers those in denial, and that they are totally unable to see how applicable the term is for their position. All over the Internet, from WUWT to SkS to Fox News to CNN, to the NY Times (and Revkin's blog), almost everywhere you can see frequent, mindless, vacuous, venomous, arrogant and ignorant claims about climate change. The anger, hubris, and insulting disdain demonstrated so vocally by so many deniers in so many places is down right frightening. As Tom rightly points out, even the use of the term "skeptic" is an insult to everyone that doesn't agree with their position. It by implication means that everyone else as an invalid and close-minded approach to the problem. It's an anti-insult, if you will, a name one can call themselves that belittles others. And yet those very same people are so very offended by the term denier. They apply every inappropriate tactic in the book, from lying to name calling to ignoring the facts to innuendo to just plain making stuff up (like conspiracy theories), and yet their feelings are hurt because we refer to them with a word that exactly describes their position: denier. Any denier who reads this and feels offended needs to stop and think. Why are you having such an emotional reaction to the term? Why does it make you angry? Then think about what you've posted, not just here, where you are forced to be polite by the rules and the nature of the conversations, but also elsewhere. You've all posted at WUWT and similar venues. How has your behavior been there? How well do you keep your laughing, condescending anger in check when you are surrounded by cohorts of gleefully bleating friends who all believe as you believe? No, if you are hurt by the term denier, then you need to take a long, hard look at your own approach to understanding the science, and how open minded you are. If the term denier bothers you, then you are not a skeptic. If the term denier means nothing to you, then you may be a real, true skeptic, and there's hope. You also need to consider the implications if you are wrong. I have. I continue to do so. It's a very important part of the equation. I'm comfortable with my stance because I believe it is correct, but I also believe that if I'm wrong, good will still come of it. No one is going to instill a one-world government from this. No one is going to destroy the economies of the world so that greenies can make money in carbon-trading schemes. None of that could ever, possibly, conceivably come to pass. But massive drought, starvation, refugees, ensuing wars, social and economic upheaval, can all result from climate change. The "catastrophic" label that deniers love to add to AGW, to make it seem over the top, is not nearly so over the top as many people think. The worst of it won't happen for fifty to one hundred years, but that doesn't keep my conscience any cleaner. An ability to coldly dismiss the fates of our ancestors is not a good trait in my book. So, deniers... meaning the people who are offended by that term... why are you so offended (and I don't mean in a literal sense, I mean it as a rhetorical question, and to imply that you should go do some soul searching)? And are you really ready to bear the guilt that you ultimately should feel if (when) you turn out to be very, very, very wrong?
83679. Charlie A at 01:11 AM on 5 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Riccardo #89 "The paper is about decadal forecasts, as opposed to long term (climatic) projections. I'm sure you agree that it's a completely different issue." Are you saying that we should not trust the climate models to make reliable decadal projections? The main article says "For example, model projections of sea level rise and temperature produced in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR - 2001) for 1990 – 2006 show good agreement with subsequent observations over that period." Riccardo -- do you feel this is an inappropriate statement? It seems to me that the main article claims that short term projections are reliable. Do you disagree? The link provided in the main article in that section is to Rahmstorf 2007, which looks compares the 2001 TAR projections to the global average temperature observations through 2006 and, through the use of an innovative method of handling end point data extension, finds that the models underestimate the actual trend. Of course, later observations have shown that the Rahmstorm method of smoothing and extending data is faulty, but that is the article chosen by Verity to support the statement that the 2001 TAR projections through 2006 are good.
83680. RyanStarr at 01:09 AM on 5 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       As user 'protestant' pointed out in the other thread the comparison was already made in the original paper. "...from the various adjusted CRUTEM3+HadSST2 90-30ºN record (black dotted line showing decadal mean values AD 1850-1999)" ( -Accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption snipped- ).
       Response:

       [DB]  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.

83681. dana1981 at 00:48 AM on 5 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       John Nicol, if you want to dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect, there are posts on that subject. If you want to discuss climate sensitivity, there are posts on that subject as well. It becomes impossible to respond to you when you dispute so many scientific topics in one comment, which is why we have the 'no off topic comments' rule. I will say that no climate models have negative values of climate sensitivity within their possible range, so I think it's quite obvious why they're considered implausible, aside from the rather obvious physical reasons [i.e. negative sensitivity would prevent transitions from glacial to interglacial periods]. Butl that's an issue that should be discussed in the climate sensitivity post comments. Please make use of the search bar.
83682. adelady at 00:34 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman "Is the term denier used in any other forum apart from the holocaust or climate science?" Of course it is. Domestic violence, terminal illness, parents of disabled or delinquent children, the five stages of grief ... and any number of other circumstances find people describing others as being in denial. And then there's all the non-personal stuff like evolution and AIDS-hiv.
83683. Tom Curtis at 00:29 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman @306, I have just listed five different contexts in which the term "denier" is used excluding holocaust or agw denial in my post 301 above, including links. I doubt the list is exhaustive. As you are responding to the moderator's comment in post 301, presumably you have also read my post, and seen the five different uses. Consequently asking, "Is the term denier used in any other forum apart from the holocaust or climate science?" strikes me as disingenuous. You had the answer before you asked the question, but asked it anyway to create doubt where none should exist. I am quite happy to have a debate without insult or name calling. My problem is that my opponents in this debate have chosen to falsely call themselves "skeptics" with the intent of suggesting that climate scientists are not being true skeptics, ie, not being scientists at all. Not content to merely suggest it, they openly claim it on a regular basis. Their libels are their problem, but I am not going to continue them by using "climate skeptics" as a name for those least skeptical in their actual practise in analysing climate science, while excluding those who are most skeptical in doing so. Hence, I need a new name for my opponents. Now, it so happens that "denier" is a descriptively accurate term for them. Because of the diversity of positions they hold, no other single term that I know of is descriptively accurate, and as I do not wish to forever use circumlocutions, "denier" is what I will call them. If you can suggest a better alternative, I will certainly consider it (and adopt it if I consider it better), but until then, "denier" suites the bill admirably.
83684. garethman at 00:05 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       [DB] ......... can we all put an end to the references to Holocaust denial/Nazism/fascism/NWO? If one wishes to forego what the science and logic tells us is happening in the physical, measurable world, that is their right. But then the appellation "denier" sticks by default. Is the term denier used in any other forum apart from the holocaust or climate science? If not it’s a bit disingenuous to deny the word is used in such a way to condemn individuals with it’s subtle links and inference, and then say no-one can note this link . This paradoxically could be seen as denial of a real issue and to be brushing certain facts under the carpet. Something we accuse many people of doing in the first place with regards to climate science. Good debate should never be reduced to name calling however passionate we feel about an issue. Words have power to convince, but also to drive away, and if people are insulted by using such terms as Denialist or Zealot, it just pushes people further into their own corner and builds more barriers.
       Response:

       [DB] The point is, those who deny that our climate is changing, that our way of life is helping cause that change, that doing nothing about it will make things worse are the ones shifting the focus of the conversation away from the science and are attempting to reframe it as a debate where both "sides" may have equal validity.  Their viewing things first through the lens of labels is empty rhetoric and spin only.

       Since they have no science to support their "do nothing" approach they attempt to dissemble and prevaricate and obfuscate and deny.  A spade is a spade; a rose, a rose.  To call them by labels other than what they are is also denial.

83685. Tom Curtis at 23:35 PM on 4 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       John Nicol @90, if I where a moderator here, I would delete your post. This is not because there is nothing worth discussing, or worth avoiding discussing in your post. It is because any response in detail to any but the second and third paragraphs in the post would be immediately off topic in this thread. The onus should be on you to find the appropriate topic for that detailed discussion, post the relevant logical points of your essay at those locations, and then link back to those discussion here, with a brief comment on the relevance to the topic here, the reliability of models. By avoiding that onus, it appears that you want to make your detailed claims but use the comments policy to shield yourself from detailed criticism. As I am sure that is not what you want to do, perhaps you could do the moderators a favour by reposting the relevant sections of the above essay in the appropriate topics, and restricting the discussion here only to factors directly bearing on the reliability of models. Of course, you may not want to do the moderators any favours by so doing - but then why should they do you favours by carefully snipping only those sections of topic here rather than simply deleting the whole post?
83686. John Nicol at 23:12 PM on 4 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       I hope this statement below meets the criteria for this particular thread. If not, let me know if there is another place where I might share it with readers. John Nicol It is interesting to read the IPCC report, in particular Chapter 8 and then to read the many interpretations which are evident here. In its final analysis in AR4, the IPCC stated that amny of the parameters which it could include as input to the models were very uncertain. There were also many variables and behaviours which were poorly understood. In the model's outputs they conceded that precipitation, clouds, convection and several other very important features which have very strong influences on weather and by definition on climate - since climate is simply the average of "weather" taken over thirty years" (an internationally accepted definition of climate). The one crowning statement from the IPCC AR4 is that "In spite of these uncertainties, we have a high level of confidence in the assessment of the temperature." - or words to that effect. It is also stated in that document that the temperatures calculated from each of the models, for doubling carbon dioxide, range from approximately 1 to 5 degrees, after eliminating ,models whose results were, in the words of the IPCC, "implausible" which is code for "returned negative values for the temperature increase on doubling CO2". If a finding of +1 is plausible while below another implausible finding of magnitude +5, why is another with its value 4 less than +1 i.e. of -3 considered implausible? After all, according to the results shown in Chapter 8, no two of the 23 models shared a similar result! I have some difficulty understanding the rationale behind these fairly arbitrary conclusions in what is, at least ostensibly, an effort to determine scientifically what will be the effect of doubling carbon dioxide. There are no references in the IPCC report which show independently that carbon dioxide causes warming. It is "remonstrated" only in the results of the models. (-Snip-) As with all science, the above analysis may be incorrect but it is thrown in to stimulate discussion about the role played by Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. I look forward to reading comments and criticisms which provide a different approach to the problem.
       Response:

       [DB] Apologies, as you must have spent substantial time and effort developing and posting your comment, but the snipped majority falls outside the scope of this thread. 

       As dana1981 points out, you are welcome to break up your longer comment into components and post those on more appropriate threads for others to read & discuss if you wish (the Search function will find ample threads; select the most appropriate for the comments).

       Alternatively, you could post the entire comment as a blog post on your own blog and then provide a link here for interested parties to follow.

83687. Riccardo at 22:56 PM on 4 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie A thanks for pointing us to this very interesting paper. Though, you fail to put the paper in the right context and come to clearly wrong conclusions. The paper is about decadal forecasts, as opposed to long term (climatic) projections. I'm sure you agree that it's a completely different issue. So, when you say that "the climate models don't do very well globally" you should use the singular, given that they use just one decadal forecast climate model (DePrSys), and specify the time span. Indeed, on going from t+1-t+4 years to t+10 years things change drammatically (table 8); DePrSys proves to be, not the best, but a good one. Your last sentence is also incorrect. Indeed (fig. 4) random walk is better than any model in the time interval where there's no trend and "From around 1970 there is a clear preference for models that are able to model trend and the ratio turns against the random walk". This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows what a random walk is and that there's not just CO2. Regional forecasts are more problematic. Though, the paper compares the data from six spots to DePrSys. Here small scale influences, beyond the resolution of the model, are likely do be an important factor. In my opinion, the comparison should have been done on the medium scale appropiate to the resolution of the model. You linked to Pielke Sr. without comments, so this final remark is referred more to him than to you. Quote mining is easy and usually I avoid it because I think that science is more interesting, let alone important. The following quote (but could have been more) from the paper should be considered an exception to my own rule: "But there is no comfort for those who reject the whole notion of global warming– the [statistical] forecasts still remain inexorably upward with forecasts that are comparable to those produced by the models used by the IPCC."
83688. skywatcher at 22:39 PM on 4 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Hi Glenn, thanks for the informative reply. You're right about teh importance of the winter milding vs summer melting, and of course it's important for the series to be consistent in its methods. An analysis well worth reading that has a lot of bearing on the comparison between different temperature series, in case nobody's linked to it already: Tamino's "How Fast is Earth Warming?". So far as I'm aware he's submitted it for publication and it's in press, but am not sure where. Here's the key figure: The take-home message is that when corrected for the exogenous factors (solar, volcanic, ENSO), all temperature series agree exceptionally well on both the rate of warming and the year-to-year variability. Different series respond differently to the exogenous factors, e.g. the solar and ENSO contribution is twice as strong for lower troposphere measurements RSS and UAH compared to surface temperature datasets. It gives us both confidence in the magnitude of underlying warming (about 1.7C per century), and that this underlying warming rate has not slowed at all this last decade, despite the best efforts of the exogenous factors. The key issue, similar to what Glenn's showing here, is that not all the temperature datasets are measuring exactly the same thing, and Tamino's showing that the rate of warming in all datasets is comparable.
83689. John Hartz at 22:25 PM on 4 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       Kudos to Agnostic for an excellent summary of AGW causes and effects.
83690. J Bowers at 20:30 PM on 4 June 2011
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
       skywatcher -- "Scotland's going for 100% renewable by 2020,..." Here in England, I'm already having all of my electricity from the grid replaced by Scottish renewables, so the option is already there if you shop around (hint - M&S, if you weren't aware). It works out cheaper to me, the end consumer, and I get incentives to reduce my electricity consumption.
83691. les at 20:22 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       304 - thanks for underscoring the weird mess people get into when they try to use ideology to understand and solve practical problems. Personal power generation has its place as dose the grid and centralised power generation and management. No amount of lefty/right wind politics, libertarian, socialist etc. etc. political deliberations will allow anyone to find out the right mix. Same as understanding the impacts of CO2 etc. on the climate... liking or not liking big energy companies, the UN, federal government etc. etc. don't change the facts - however much such feelings might incline people to be, lets say, selective.
83692. Tom Curtis at 19:10 PM on 4 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Jigoro Kano @43, the fares for the New York Subway are actually 2.25 per trip or 2.50 if you buy a traditional ticket. Further, children accompanying an adult ride free, and the elderly and disabled can ride for $1.10 per trip. I do not have the information to turn that into an overall revenue for the Subway. I do know the MTA has an estimated fair revenue across all services of 4.5 billion dollars for 2010. That indicates that free and discount trips (possibly along with fare evasion) eats substantially into their revenue. I will say that NY public transport fees are absurdly cheap when compared to those of, for example, Brisbane. As to the direct issue of public or private ownership, it makes no difference to the train driver of conductor whether their salary comes from a corporation of a government. Therefore it is not the case that public enterprises are inefficient, while private ones are efficient. In fact, having worked for large public and private enterprises, the most inefficient, bureaucratic and corrupt enterprise was the private corporation. What is very important is the system of management, and public enterprises often fall into bad systems of management. That is not an argument against public enterprise, but for efficiency driven, accountable management in public enterprises.
83693. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:06 PM on 4 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Thanks for the typo fixes one and all. Warm, ETR Interesting paper by Rigor et al. When you think about the result, it makes some sense. In winter up there everything is Ice & Snow. In one sense it is ALL 'land'. So you are far more likely to correlation between 'land' and 'sea', particularly when you factor in the known phenomenon that air temps immediately above Snow/Ice are largely set by the snow and ice. In summer when the land is dark and ice free, and at least some of the sea is open water, the more usual ralationships between land and sea reestablish themselves. Skywatcher. To my knowledge, based on the data that GISTEMP put up, they rely on the available SST data for oceans and this doesn't cover the Arctic ocean since it isn't available where there is ice cover. And using data for only part of the year would a big No No. The phenomenon you describe is real and has an impact although there will be a limit to how high above the ice this extends. Conversely, this will not have the same effect in winter. Arctic warming can quite easily be extreme if winter temps moderate significantly even if summer ones don't. Less cold in winter impacts on sea ice thickness, snow cover thickness etc which then shows its results in the melt season even if the summer temps haven't changed as much. Climatewatcher. Yep, most of the metrics for temp change are pretty much in sync. You might be interested in this earlier post I did some time ago on satellite temperature products My take home from putting all this together is this. The method used by HADCruT (and NCDC, JMA) will underestimate global temp changes in a world where the arctic is warming more than the average. GISS will be closer to the reality although whether they over or under estimate is hared to say. WRT to the RSS & UAH Lower Troposphere satellite temps (LT), they are convegring as processing errors are resolved. Also there is a residual impact from the effect of a short overlap time between the NOAA 9 & NOAA 10 satellites that is playing through their differeing analysis methods. As I discuss in the earlier post, there is reason to think, from other analyses, that RSS & UAH may be underestimating the trend somewhat. Your graph also includes MT series from UAH & RSS. As I discuss in the earlier post, these trends are unphysical, being influenced by an impact from stratospheric cooling on the results. The only satellite temp' products that are close to being useful as presented are the LT series and the LS (Lower Stratosphere) series. So my take home from the take home. The temp records show quitre amazing agreement given the compexities of generating them. Kevin C You have to LOVE those names. Instead of stations with names like Lower Smithhampton, somethingorothergorsk, someonesbridge. .... Tahiti FAAA, Bora Bora, Hereheretue. Gauguin, RL Stevenson, that lovely woman from those cheap Tahiti tourism ads. Where are you now? You need someone to study the 'SLOW climatological changes of Foraminafera organisms in the Benthic environment of a lagoon encircled tropical island, one with, Palm Tree fertilisation influenced, reef organism biosystems and with particular focus on the impacts upon culinary practices wrt to sustainable harvesting of molluscs and cultural beliefs regarding fertility concommittant with said dietary practices. And the potential psychological benefits to 'the great literary enterpise' of such dietary and fertilty promoting practices. Where do I 'volunter'?
83694. RSVP at 18:46 PM on 4 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       Moderator 4 "( -Accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption snipped- ). " The featured article calls for political action... "Those governments can and should be compelled to act responsibly by imposing a carbon tariff " ...which implies governments are not currently acting responsibly (a political comment that is also an accusation in itself). My comment was only questioning the ethics of such a paradigm.
       Response:

       [DB] Certainly if you had added extra verbiage to clarify your comment in the first place than perhaps it may have been interpreted differently.  But you didn't.

       "My comment was only questioning the ethics of such a paradigm."

       If you were in a burning building and knew of a way out, would it be ethical to not tell the others in the building that there was a way out? 

       If somone had the choice to drink from two cups, and you knew that one contained a deadly poison and which one it was, would it be ethical to not tell them? 

       If you knew a bridge was out on a well-travelled road, would it not be ethical to alert the authorities and other motorists?  Even if it made you late for dinner?

       This thread is about the knowledge of a palpable threat to our and our descendants way of life (and our descendants very existence, should we do nothing), and what we can do personally and as a society to reduce the magnitude and repercussions of that threat.

       If you then interpret that as a call to political action rather than as a call for responsible societal action, that's an issue internal to you.

83695. actually thoughtful at 17:49 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       I just want to underscore the raw power in reclaiming your own personal energy independence. When you can heat your home, power your devices, and travel without relying on a monopoly provider - life is definitely better. This is the end result of NOT being a skeptic/denier. Anyone who understand the science is (morally/ethically/financially/practically) compelled to take action. The most logical action is to harness the power of the sun directly on your own property (assuming you own property). There will eventually be issues with relying on the grid (yes, that evil monopoly I just mentioned can be perverted for good) - but we are far from that issue, and early adopters (sigh - still early adopters in 2011...) can benefit from their (relatively) quick action. And controlling your own heating/cooling doesn't require any grid at all - just the willingness to invest in your financial well-being, and the future of happy humans on earth.
83696. les at 17:37 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       227 - Eric (Sceptic)

       I'm sure there are odds and ends that can mitigate the effects in the rest of the world, but as I said, people ultimately have to be allowed, encourage and empowered to take responsibility for their well being.

       I saw this: Why Feed-in Tariffs are an Important Climate Solution: They ‘Empower People' and thought of you. pick up your Euro-Trotskyite T-shirt ar the reception desk.
83697. Berényi Péter at 17:26 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       This entire thread is skating on thin ice. You can deny it, but it is still so.
83698. Jigoro Kano at 16:40 PM on 4 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Tom Curtis @ 42 Nice work finding this gem. After reading it, I need to make a non-pertinent correction to my 29. The NYC subway and others listed within CBC are considered Heavy Rail not Light Rail as I posted. I should say it makes a small difference when readings e @ 40 post. If not publicly owned, not publicly subsidized the NYC system would be much more efficient and profitable. Being public makes it's a bastion of corruption, but that story is more OT then we are now. I do not object to mass transit, I do object being forced to pay for it. Taken at face value, you'll notice NYC has more riders then all other municipalities combined. With the highest US population density, obviously the best suited for a mass transit system. The calculation as listed CBC-NYC however, are a bit curious. 1)For example, look at the Daily Passenger Trips: 6,461,133. For a population of 8.3 million the ridership seems a bit unrealistic. Assuming this count includes a rider from A to B and also that same rider from B to A so although it is two trips but one rider. So halving the ridership for comparison to overall population yields a ~40% ridership, still unlikely. But lets work with it. 2)By dividing Daily Passenger Miles by Daily Passenger Trips a 4.23 mile average trip per rider is calculated. Completely feasible. 3)Accepting the given $.33/per passenger mile and multiplying the 2) results (4.23 miles) a $1.40/trip average is found. Confirmed table 3. 4)Multiplying 3) by the Daily Passenger Trips; MTA spends nearly $9.02 million a day...or $3.39 billion a year in expenses. Not far off from that given. 5)The fee per subway ride, according to MTA is $2.50, so MTA receipts are $16.1 million/day or $5.8 billion/year...WOW! 6) Are you suggesting MTA nets $2.58 billion/year? Or could it be the given stats are...curious? I never suggest NYC was the world capital for mass transit efficiency. In fact quite the contrary. The US transit system are wrought with bad practices and outdated designs. Europe, Shanghai, Taipei...etc have all modernized their trains. The US, however will never take such steps do to the intrenched interest. Tom there is a lot of money to be made in these government approved entities; unlikely to change. Tom, I still owe you a response to 35. There is much in that post I need to consider.
83699. Tom Curtis at 16:28 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Camburn @296, you may never go to denier sites but I suspect you simply never notice how libellous and abusive is the language directed as pro-science participants in denier forums. With regard to the word denier, it does not have the associations you purport it has. I was aware of the use of the term to describe those irrationally opposed to taking action on climate change for at least six months prior to connecting it in anyway with the holocaust. That connection was only made because some deniers where insisting that it was the intended connection in its use, an accusation I find bizzare. For the record, in calling somebody a denier I no more wish to associate them with holocaust deniers than I wish to associate them with 911 deniers, moon landing deniers, birth certificate deniers, or evevolution deniers. I no more wish to suggest that AGW deniers secretly admire Hitler than I wish to suggest that they are sexually inadequate. The fact is that "denier" is a common word for people who hold rationally indefensible positions which are not kept open to refutation by contrary evidence. That it has famously been used of holocaust deniers does not change that meaning one iota; and suggesting that any use of the word is an attempt to create an association with nazism is an attempt at censorship. If there was anything in your charge at all then I would have to conclude that you have deliberately associated yourself with right wing, racist supporters of nazism by calling yourself a skeptic, for those righ wing racist nazi sympathizers call themselves holocaust skeptics. With regard to Hansen, I have defended Hansen at length already on this thread. So unless you wish to clearly state spreading disinformation that results in thousands of deaths in the full knowledge that it will probably result in thousands of deaths is not, and/or should not be a crime, I just have to chalk you up as another denier misrepresenting Hansen. Finally, you claim to be a skeptic, not a denier. Well the evidence I have seen makes me skeptical of that claim, but the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. If, indeed, you are a genuine skeptic it will not worry you that you are called a denier - you'll just get on and argue the science. After all, I have been called an irrational left wing radical who is only arguing for the consensus position because I am a paid Labor party troll and because I only want to fraudulently secure more funding for my fraudulent research, and because I secretly want to engineer the deaths of three quarters of the world population. But it is not that, but the lack of evidence from the deniers that concerns me.
       Response:

       [DB] Tom elquently has made the case that the resistance to the term denier by equating it with Holocaust denial/Nazism/fascism/NWO is a patently transparent attempt to reframe the struggles of those espousing science vs those espousing non-science as a "debate" wherein it is possible that both "sides" may be right.

       Since that is clearly not possible, can we all put an end to the references to Holocaust denial/Nazism/fascism/NWO?  If one wishes to forego what the science and logic tells us is happening in the physical, measurable world, that is their right.  But then the appellation "denier" sticks by default.

83700. Kevin C at 16:04 PM on 4 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Very nice post. The land/ocean ocean proportion for the islands was a particularly nice piece of work. Nick Stokes revisted the 60 calculation question after he implemented area weighting in TempLS. Instead of picking them somewhat arbitrarily, he picked them to give optimal global coverage on the basis of the area weightings. The result is even more striking: (The post is here.)

Prev  1666  1667  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  Next