Recent Comments

Prev  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  Next

Comments 83751 to 83800:

83751. 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 ...
83752. 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.
83753. 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!
83754. 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!
83755. 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.
83756. 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.
83757. 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.
83758. 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.
83759. 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).

83760. 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/
83761. 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?
83762. 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)
83763. 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?
83764. 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.
83765. 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.

83766. 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.
83767. 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.
83768. 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.
83769. 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.

83770. 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?
83771. 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.

83772. 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."
83773. 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.
83774. 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.
83775. 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.
83776. 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.
83777. 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.
83778. 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'?
83779. 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.

83780. 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.
83781. 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.
83782. 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.
83783. 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.
83784. 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.

83785. 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.)
83786. scaddenp at 15:43 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       There is a radical left in USA? It keeps pretty quiet. Policies I would associate with centre-left parties get labelled "communist" by US citizens. From media impressions, encounters with socialist Utopian dreamers from here or Europe would result in a National Guard call-out. Not that I trust media impressions of course but they must be a rare breed.
83787. actually thoughtful at 15:39 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom Curtis at 261 - regarding social intelligence vs. critical thinking. GREAT POST! That is a very interesting way to think about the problem of denialism. One of my mentors has pointed out over and over and over that we will switch to a renewable energy system from peer pressure, and peer pressure alone. A fascinating example is happening in my little corner of the universe. The local electric monopoly is studying how much renewable energy its local substation can handle (going for up to 25% (all from distributed solar PV on rooftops). This will debunk the utility industry claim that 10% is the max you can handle on any given substation. My right wing neighbor finally threw in the towel and got solar. I will be very, very curious to see if this neighborhood goes even more solar after the test period, proving my mentor's point that peer pressure means much more than cold logic and analysis. This is the underlying logic of my oft-repeated "bias towards action" - but you are much more eloquent than I in stating the hows and whys.
83788. actually thoughtful at 15:04 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garthman:"So for every extreme right wing believer, there will be an extreme left wing ideologue, for every barking mad right wing religionist there will be an evangelical atheist" I don't believe this is true. One point is that those on the left tend to rely on science and evidence, while those on the right tend to rely on faith (witness the creationism "issue", climate change denial, ignoring the fact that taxes pay for government (ie it is not true that cutting taxes increases funds for government services). In the United States, the "radical right" has created the tea party. The "radical left" (which I am often accused of being) - promotes the responsible reduction in fossil fuel use before it becomes a crisis (we are on the edge of this). I hope this is not too political. I think the point needs to be made - mainstream in the USA right now is very right of center, and the usual co-traveler of the right is a strong (and expressed) desire to ignore inconvenient scientific and financial truths. This has the potential to be very, very bad for all citizens. Not understanding the problem leads to trying to solve the wrong issue - like arguing over debt ceilings instead of balancing the budget, or arguing about whether climate change is happening, instead of focusing on solving the issue.
83789. Utahn at 15:04 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Funny, Camburn, you must not look very hard for that type of language: "...which gives lie to the inbuilt bias of the IPCC whose mission is to scare us all into submission to deindistrialisation and hugely more expensive energy with their particular brand of science." "...the IPCC has no interest in science." "My genuine effort to learn about the science of climate led me to ice core lies which led me to question what the “scientists” were saying. Since then I have seen a whole lot of other lies of which quite deliberate misinterpretation of thermometer data is one." All from the last post I just perused at wuwt...
83790. Daniel Bailey at 14:46 PM on 4 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       Thanks for the link. It originally comes from his book, The Long Thaw, as well as this Nature Reports piece. Included is this graphic, showing the "long tail" of CO2: Thanks again!
83791. owl905 at 14:32 PM on 4 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       Cumulative emissions, and historical share, are red herrings. The Chinese have used this dodge since 2004, to avoid accountability for practices since the nature of the GHG-pollution threat was understood. Claims that China is taking the lead in 'green energy' is misleading to the point of false - the Chinese have tapped every form of energy available to the max as their economy grows as double-digit rates. And if there's a rush to suppress the coal pollution in China - get read for another 90s as the aerosl reduction cause a global temperature surge similar to the end of the Warsaw Pact economies. On the David Archer phrase, here's one link referring to it: http://www.davidworr.com/more.php?articleid=25
83792. Albatross at 14:11 PM on 4 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Eric @29, "ENSO does affect Amazon rainfall, so I would be willing to keep it to that." Indeed it does (as do other factors), but yes, please do keep it to that. Feel free to move your misguided notions about the impact of long-term global temperature trends to post on ENSO or internal climate variability.
83793. drbad at 13:55 PM on 4 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       While China is the world's greatest emitter of greenhouse gases (it took over that dubious distinction from the United States in 2006), the US ranks at the top of the GHG leader board in cumulative emissions since 1850, with the EU second. Between them, the US and the EU account for over 55% of cumulative emissions. China is a poor fourth at 7.6%, and India is further down the list at 2.2%. One of the more unfortunate aspects of dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere is that for all practical purposes, it never goes away, i.e, "carbon is forever." University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer has stated that, "The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge, longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."
       Response:

       [DB] Nice Archer quote.  Do you have a link?

83794. Camburn at 13:47 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom: I guess I must never go to deniers sites, as I have never witnessed the type of language you are writing about. This is a two sided topic tho. By using the word "denier", you, or anyone else using it, bring violent thoughts to mind. The Holocost was horrific, with most people familiar with pictures etc of what happened. That, in and off itself, will create emotions that have no bearing on the arguement of AGW. When Dr. Hansen says CEO's of oil co's should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity, that also provokes images of the death penalty. This is not a one sided thing. The thing is, for anyone to make a threat against anyone else on a personal level, is not to be tollerated in any way shape or form. I am a skeptic in the truest sense of the word. When I look at paleo data of the Holocene, read papers from leading scholars such as Dr. Svalgaard, http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040142.pdf concerning solar, look at radiation measurements etc....there is a puzzle yet to unfold. I am also a skeptic because of eminent people claiming that weather events are climatic events. Such as the case with the current level of tornadoes in the US. Yet NOAA sees no climate linkage at this time: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2011/tornadoes/climatechange.html Just a few tidbits.
83795. Camburn at 13:14 PM on 4 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       An NWP analysis is based on vastly more information thatn available from any single observing ststem. Data from ground, aircraft, bouys, ship, satellites, radiosondes, etc. are all combined to adjust the first guess field. As a consequence the quality of an analysis is much better than what can be obtained from gridding, or treating in other ways, data from a single or a few observing systems. To quote the 2nd paragraph of that link. So, being the quality is outstanding, we can compare year to year using the DMI data. From that one could get an anomoly to see if the warming/cooling is close to GISS data. As long as we are comparing the anomoly from 80 degrees north.
83796. Tom Curtis at 12:55 PM on 4 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       A recent article on ABC online is relevant to my 138. In this case the death threats are not being directed at scientists in any way associated with climategate or any other faux controversy engineered by deniers, but at simple climate scientists. Some of the threats explicitly state that the scientists will be attacked "if they continue their research". There is a certain irony to this. Tallbloke, unhappy that a comment of his was deleted for containing a profanity, has posted a blog on his website about the supposed censorship at Skeptical Science. In comments he congratulates himself for the lack of inflammatory comments in his blog, but the blog itself begins by suggesting that John Cook is "scarily brief step" from locking scientists who disagree with the consensus on global warming away in mental institutions. Indeed, the form of that suggestion, a truncated paraphrase of Martin Niemöller's famous quote ("First they came for the Jews ..." indirectly associates Cook with Nazism. Nothing inflammatory about that, of course. Or at least, not in tallbloke's eyes. The irony is that while tallbloke is trying to beat up a statement that scientists disagreeing with the consensus are probably wrong into a revelation inclinations towards totalitarian suppression of dissent, his fellow travellers are using death threats to actually try and suppress dissent, and indeed, not just dissent, but research. This is not to suggest that tallbloke or any other well known denier would approve of such threats. Indeed, I am sure they would be horrified at the thought. But when you habitually accuse a group of people of fraud, conspiracy, genocidal inclinations, and, of course, suppression of dissent by totalitarian means, it would be surprising in the extreme if that did not translate into threats against those people. All of these accusations have been made by some well known deniers, and no well known denier has not make at least some of them. Including, of course, tallbloke with his nazi allusion. Anybody thinking the debate here sometimes gets a bit too vitriolic should bear in mind the nature of the accusations deliberately and publicly made by the most prominent deniers against the more prominent climate scientists. They should also bear in mind that probably not one active pro-science debater on this site has not at some time or another been accused of fraud, conspiracy to defraud for monetary gain, and intentions of genocide. I know I have (all three), and I am not even a climate scientist. These accusations are routinely made on denier sites whose participants laud themselves on their politeness and reasonable tone, while vilifying such sites as Skeptical Science for the abusive nature of the comments made here. This illustrates clearly that denialism never stays constrained. It necessarily infects all parts of a persons thoughts or else it will self destruct from inconsistency.
83797. Camburn at 12:24 PM on 4 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       It would be interesting to compare the anomoly of GISS to the DMI temperature data sets. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
       Response:

       [DB] Digging a little deeper gives an answer to that:

       "The temperature graphs are made from numerical weather prediction (NWP) "analysis" data. Analyses are the model fields used to start NWP models. They represent the statistically most likely state of the atmosphere, given the information available to make the analysis. Since the data are gridded, it is straight forward to deduce the average temperature North of 80 degree North.

       However, since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic. The 'plus 80 North mean temperature' graphs can be used for comparing one year to an other."

       DMI presents us a tool; like any tool, it can be put to purposes other than intended.  Like a direct comparison to GISS...

83798. Daniel Bailey at 12:17 PM on 4 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       Speaking of facts, figures and outcomes: Ain't Google swell? Looks like too much of a good thing...
83799. Camburn at 12:16 PM on 4 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Actually, in the Arctic there is a vast array of temperature metrics that are available to be used. They are not presently used by GISSTEMP, but I do expect them to be added in the near future to improve the quality of the anomolies. http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/get_metadata.pl?id=g00791
83800. Eric the Red at 11:41 AM on 4 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Not sure where you are getting your information Albatross, but the warmest years on record are all El Nino years; 1998, 2005, 2010. The opposite for La Nina. Where are the inconsistencies? I do not know what issue you have with the CRU scientists, but it is the longest running thermometer database. We have probably gotten a little OT, but ENSO does affect Amazon rainfall, so I would be willing to keep it to that.

Prev  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  Next