Recent Comments

Prev  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  Next

Comments 84101 to 84150:

84101. Rob Painting at 07:13 AM on 2 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Alexandre - Actually I do remember a study that specifically references southern Brazil, see if I can track it down.
84102. Stephen Baines at 07:12 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       L.J. Obviously e meant dhogaza.
84103. L.J. Ryan at 07:08 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       e 154 Ah e Sphaerica's point is skeptics are(Deniers)and equating skeptics to Holocaust deniers. No mention of CO2 lasers.
       Response:

       [DB] e meant Dhogaza.  Please return to being on-topic.

84104. DSL at 06:53 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Thanks, KR. This is a closed mind. No possible engagement.
84105. KR at 06:48 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Moderators - I'm noting the other blog threads here because I was personally involved in discussing this topic with L.J.Ryan in both locations.
84106. KR at 06:45 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Note - L.J. Ryan has spent quite a bit of time here (on the 2nd Law thread) and upon Jonova (two different 2nd law threads where Jo Nova pointed out quite correctly that there is no conflict with the greenhouse effect) insisting that, no, indeed, the radiative greenhouse theory is thermodynamically impossible. This is denial, not skepticism, asserting things that are flatly contradicted by the world around us. scaddenp, I don't know what evidence would be sufficient for a denier at this level.
84107. Stephen Baines at 06:41 AM on 2 June 2011
       CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
       Trunkmonkey...Fig three in that Le Quere et al paper does not depict sources and sinks areas for CO2, but rather the difference in rates of change in CO2 over time in the ocean and atmosphere at those points. For a general map of source and sink areas you'd be better off looking at this. You also have your CO2 sink and source waters mixed up. The THC moves warm salty water to the north Atlantic where it cools and sinks. The North Atlantic is a sink for atmospheric CO2 because, as the Gulf Stream cools on it's northward trek, it absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere before sinking. Algae also grow there seasonally, taking up CO2 eventually sinking to depth where they decompose. Tropical upwelling regions are sources of atmospheric CO2 because deep water that is cold and has high CO2 warms after reaching the surface, resulting in the release of CO2 to the atmosphere. The only way this doesn't happen is if algae growing on the nutrients contained in that water suck up the CO2 before it has a chance to escape. The deep water has high CO2 because it was cold when it sank (as in the North Atlantic) and because CO2 from respiration of sinking organic matter builds up over time. The fact that the ocean has source and sink regions is largely moot to your question though. Under steady atmospheric CO2, the source and sink regions balance each other - they represents CO2 being shuffled around, nothing more. When atmospheric CO2 increases, that balance between sources and sinks shifts. More CO2 gets absorbed by the mixed layer all over the ocean. More also gets absorbed by cooling surface waters that form deep water. Less CO2 is lost when cold water upwells and warms. The ability of the ocean to absorb more CO2 as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase is a matter of physical chemistry. You can't get around it without violating some basic law or another. The only serious scientific question (and we're going back to the 1950s, here) was whether the ocean sink could keep up with emissions. The answer was a resounding no. If you absolutely need a telling observation, a warming ocean that is becoming acidic must be absorbing CO2. Normally when the ocean warms its pH increases as it gives up CO2 to the atmosphere. The fact that the ocean is warming and declining in pH is a sure sign that CO2 is following the concentration gradient into the ocean.
84108. scaddenp at 06:25 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       L.J. Ryan, how about telling us what evidence in say 10 years time would convince you that you were wrong? (ie. convince us that your opinions about the world are based on data).
84109. L.J. Ryan at 06:01 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DB 152 & Rob Honeycutt 151 Understanding CO2 is no more important then understanding juggling, coffee beans, or why canines like peanut butter. The issue, how GHG physics radiative insulation,re-radiation warms the surface. CO2 laser (not of my introduction)a have nothing to do with atmosphere CO2...that's my point. ( - Complaint about moderation snipped - )
       Moderator Response:

       [e] The comment policy of this site has already been clearly pointed out to you. Any comments that violate this policy will be trimmed or deleted.

       Sphaerica's Dhogaza's point is that CO2 lasers function due to the radiative properties of CO2, the understanding of which is a component of atmospheric physics and climate models. Now, please get back on topic.

84110. Eric (skeptic) at 05:05 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Thanks dhogaza, but I was asking what Tom's hypothetical "fair minded casual reader" would think. That means we have to agree on the mindset of an FMCR. I'm pretty sure that an FMCR would not equate the death threat with the accusation of criminality, but I asked whether the FMCR would find them both unacceptable. I hope that clarifies.
84111. L.J. Ryan at 04:54 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       JMurphy 150 What is the question?
       Response:

       [DB] Let's assume you are confused and not being intentionally obtuse:

       Dhogaza pointed out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood. 

       You answered by asking "So what's your point?"

       JMurphy wanted to know what your point was in asking Dhogaza "So what's your point?".

       Do you have one?  If not, let's let this drop.

84112. Rob Honeycutt at 04:28 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       L.J. Ryan... I think dhogaza's point is quite clear. He's saying the properties of CO2 are extremely well understood.
84113. trunkmonkey at 04:26 AM on 2 June 2011
       CO2 only causes 35% of global warming
       Dikran Marsupial @6. As much relief as it is to be exonerated from lying, it is still a disappointment to remain a simpleton for not understanding that a large amount of CO2 essentially sequestered amongst hordes of H2Ov molecules in the lower troposphere is "entirely irrelevant to the greenhouse effect"; particularly as I wasn't discussing the greenhouse effect, but rather possible ways CO2 might contrtol water. I was trying to suggest (however crudely)that the lower troposphere is probably not a good place to look. Thanks for Le Quere 2009. Fig 2d does show a slight trend in increased ocean uptake, but it is from a model simulation, and the unexplained residual (2e) is greater than the trend. I was more interested if Fig 3 where actual measurements show CO2 outgassing in the circum antarctic beltway, the gulf stream, and the Indo Pacific warm pool that has garnered so much interest recently. It shows CO2 uptake in the northern Pacific. Imagine the THC superimposed on this map. The THC redistributes the cold salty Arctic/Atlantic (and the Antarctic) bottom water to the Pacific and Indian oceans. The net SST effect is to warm the Atlantic and cool the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The areas of outgassing in Fig 3 are the warm surface currents of the THC. (IMO the Indo Pacific warm pool is simply a backup of the Pacific return warm current at the restriction of Micronesia) Trunkmonkey prediction: Further data will show that the Indian Ocean, particularly whichever side of the IOD the cold water us upwelling on, will be a sink for CO2.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You asked "How do you know the oceans are a carbon sink and not a source?" the graph shows the ocean to be a considerable sink in absolute terms, the downward trend is a second order issue, so I don't know why you are fixating on the trend. Whenever the line is below zero, the oceans are a sink, whatever the slope of the line may be. You need to learn the basics first, that the oceans are a net sink is pretty basic.
84114. Paul D at 04:26 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       okatiniko "You live in a huge country : do you have any idea of how travelling across it without oil for instance ?" That is the point. You don't travel as much without the energy. Is there a problem with that? Does someone have the right to travel long distances?
84115. JMurphy at 04:25 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       L.J. Ryan wrote : "So what's your point?" It would be good if you could actually answer that question.
84116. L.J. Ryan at 04:17 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza 148 "No, I'm pointing out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood by physicists..." So what's your point?
84117. dhogaza at 04:01 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       LJ Ryan:

       Are you suggesting atmospheric CO2 is functionally equivalent to a CO2 laser?

       No, I'm pointing out that the physical properties of CO2 are extremely well understood by physicists and to imagine otherwise is an example of extreme denialism.
84118. dhogaza at 03:57 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (skeptic): "is an acceptable statement by a climate scientist? Or would a fair minded reader believe that to be unacceptable along with anonymous death threats." Color me old-fashioned, but I still recognize the difference between a call for legal action vs. a threat to kill someone. I'm rather appalled at your attempt to equate the two. Far more egregious than someone pointing out that science denialists and history (holocaust) denialists share certain traits ... And being a scientist does not mean that one can not or should not speak as a person. For federal employees, that's well-established in law, BTW. US Forest Service employees can speak out against USFS logging policies, if they want, including attending rallies and demonstrations against such policies, as long as they don't try to paint their personal views as being official views of portions of the agency (wearing your uniform at a demonstration's not a good idea, for instance). Hansen, as a NASA employee, is free to speak his mind as a person as long as he doesn't try to represent his personal opinions as being those of NASA. Why don't you respect his legal rights, and why do you attempt to equate them with the making of death threats?
84119. dhogaza at 03:52 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman:

       but what do we call people who refuse to recognise on principle any peer reviewed research which does not fit with their complete belief in climate change models of one sort or another. Dogmatist? Taliban?

       Perhaps you could be specific. One doesn't have to be dogmatist to reject the content of papers that claim, for instance, that modern physics violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or that claims that sensitivity is low based on cherry-picking short-term data, or that claims that satellites show that the world isn't warming when in reality the calculation contained several simple algebraic errors, etc etc. And what does "complete belief in climate change models" mean, anyway? No modeler holds that view. No serious student of the subject holds that view. Yet, they've proven themselves useful.
84120. Eric (skeptic) at 03:50 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom Curtis, #138, point 1: would a fair minded reader also think that "CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." is an acceptable statement by a climate scientist? Or would a fair minded reader believe that to be unacceptable along with anonymous death threats.
84121. dhogaza at 03:44 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       "Apparently you didn't read Sphaerica's post which plainly stated: "Deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They are exactly like them."" See my 135 in which I said that I'd missed sphaerica's post.
84122. garethman at 03:31 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Nice definition of the difference between a skeptic and a denier. Do we have a name for the opposite philosophy? Ie the skeptic title would be the same I suppose, but what do we call people who refuse to recognise on principle any peer reviewed research which does not fit with their complete belief in climate change models of one sort or another. Dogmatist? Taliban? I suspect somewhere around the centre ground are a group of people who take a healthy interest and are happy to look at any genuine evidence, pro or anti.
84123. Bob Lacatena at 03:14 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       139, apiratelooksat50,

       Probably be a good idea for you to win some converts to the cause.

       Yes, but those converts won't come from the arrogant, lordly type who tend to post on real science blogs, let alone from the absurdly silly Wattsians that post on WUWT. The converts will come from the real skeptics who, because they are skeptical, don't post comments. They're not sure, and they're trying to learn. They're trying to wade through the morass of nonsense posted by the deniers to try to figure out where the real truth lies. And they aren't going to be offended by any widening gulf between deniers and people who understand the science. Quite to the contrary, it's going to illuminate things for them. So I encourage J. Bob to keep posting allegations that scientists are in it for the money. I encourage L.J. Ryan to keep expressing his palpable distaste at my total disregard for deniers as a collective group. I encourage all of the totally wrong and ridiculously starry eyed misinformation that deniers post. Because in the end, a large body of people are reading it, and doing what I did some years back, when I was still on the fence. They're shaking their heads, and going to the search box, and hunting down where the real truth lies. And after enough falsehoods have been exposed, there is one less skeptic in the room, and eventually all that is left are the educated, and the hopeless deniers.
84124. DSL at 03:11 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Pirate: "The result creates a polarization and widens the gulf between believers and skepics." Any scientist should be a skeptic. That's why there is no theory without the material, evidential basis of experimentation and observation. Skeptics--and correct me if I'm wrong, pirate--should, based on existing evidence, develop a set of probabilities for a given theory, and then dynamically adjust those probabilities as new data arrive. No theory--not religion, not economic mode, not climate model, not government system--should be given a free pass (unquestioned acceptance). This is all I ask of anyone engaging in public debate: incorporate as much evidence as you can into your position, and when you encounter information that cannot be explained by your position, find the position that once again covers everything. Ignoring evidence, cherry-picking, crying "we don't know anything" when one element of a complex system is not yet well-understood, an unwillingness to ask questions for the sake of understanding (as opposed to asking them to accuse), and unwillingness to accept change in one's fundamental beliefs -- these are all signs that one's skeptical attitude is on vacation. An interesting question I'd like to see posed here is "Where will the global temp be in May 2050, and what are the five most significant factors in your prediction?" LJ, your comment at 111 is completely devoid of evidence. It's empty rhetoric. There's nothing worse than having to read a paragraph of empty rhetoric. Where exactly is your problem with the theory and the evidence upon which it is based (appropriate thread, please)? I suspect clips are made based on the interpretation that a comment is designed to generate a sticky stream of useless rhetorical discharge rather than inspire a progressive (uh-oh, I mean constructive) dialogue. The economic mode is perhaps even more complex than the climate, and there just isn't enough room here to engage constructively toward that subject. One well-managed thread connecting economic mode with climate would, I suspect, within two weeks generate more comments than all other threads combined (excepting the endless 2nd law thread, of course).
84125. Bob Lacatena at 03:05 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       135, dhogaza,

       Oh, I see that Sphaerica has ... I disapprove, actually.

       I used to take that stance, until I had the word denier constantly edited from posts on a denial site, while "alarmist", "warmist", and any number of other labels were allowed to stand, and the legions of loyal followers bravely labeled themselves as "skeptics." All the while, their own understanding of the science would have shamed a ten year old. Then I started to think about it, and I realized that while the word was never intended to invoke that image, the emotional and culpable similarities are striking. Deniers didn't stumble into open dislike of that particular barb because they were overly sensitive. They stumbled in because, in their hearts, they know that it really does apply. I'm a little tired of "playing nice" with people who demonstrate a complete lack of ethics, often accompanied by extreme ignorance. And I'm not sure who's worse, the ignorant who are arrogant enough to think they know better, or those that know better and yet willfully, consciously play fast and loose with the facts to maintain the illusion of serious denial. When someone acts like a real skeptic (a pitifully infrequent behavior), I'll give them credit. When someone acts like a run-of-the-mill denier, I will be at first polite and reasonable, but I'll know who I'm dealing with, and what I'm thinking and what I'm posting may well be two very, very different things.
84126. apiratelooksat50 at 03:02 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza @ 132 "Somehow I doubt that the laws of physics care at all about vitriolic comments ..." No one implied that. If Sphaerica is concerned about AGW and the goal is to immediately commence mitigation efforts, then it will be up to governments to enact laws to put those efforts into place. Most countries citizens will have to vote. Right now in the US, things aren't looking so good for that in the public perception. Probably be a good idea for you to win some converts to the cause. dhogaza @ 134 Apparently you didn't read Sphaerica's post which plainly stated: "Deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They are exactly like them."
84127. Tom Curtis at 02:59 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       apiratelooksat50 @131: 1) While the vitriol may do poorly influence the casual reader, the fair minded casual reader will probably be more concerned about the side that sends death threats along with a torrent of vitriol both by email and in blogs; 2) While possibly concerned at the frustration so evident in Sphaerica's comments, the fair minded reader would have been more concerned by the casual accusations and insinuations of fraud by scientists which have been posted by deniers on this site over the last two days, and which can be found in overwhelming numbers on denier sites, often accompanied with self congratulating posts about how high a standard of debate, and how polite the debate is on those sites. It is noticable that those accusations and insinuations pass without censor from you, while you argue that the websites that started those accusations are good sites for students to use as sources when studying science. 3) Any chance of reconciliation between climate science and deniers is entirely illusory and has been for some time. This is because the scientists insist on reporting reality, and its reality that the deniers have a problem with.
84128. Bob Lacatena at 02:58 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       131, apiratelooksat50,

       widens the gulf between believers and skepics

       I'd forgotten that one. "Believers." Another trick name to make it look like people who understand the science are somehow indulging a religious faith. Let me make it clear. I don't attack individuals (unless they demonstrate clear, unethical behavior, so many deniers do), but I will label the behavior of deniers as such. When someone drifts into denial, or their skepticism comes across as nothing more than a veil to hide their denial, then I will say as much. I personally don't care about the feelings of deniers (if you feel the denier label applies to you, then that's your conscience at work, but yes, my sensitivity to the difference between an actual skeptic and a simple denier is a lot lower than yours, I'm sure). My take is that deniers don't care about anything except their own money and economic standing. They pretend to have lots of reasons for adopting their position, but in the end it's either greed, anger or ignorance.
84129. giniajim at 02:54 AM on 2 June 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
       This is a great series; thanks for doing it. I do have a question about the actual temperature measurements. Can you expound a bit on what is actually measured and recorded at the stations? I have an image of a person going out and looking at a thermometer every hour and writing down the temperature that he observes. What can we say about the accuracy of the instrument and the precision of his observation? Does he then report every day the hourly recordings? Is his station location (lat/long/alt) also captured somehow? Is a daily average computed from the hourly data points? Thanks.
       Response:

       [DB] This may help with some of your questions.

84130. L.J. Ryan at 02:47 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza 120 "Wake me up when CO2 lasers stop working ... " Are you suggesting atmospheric CO2 is functionally equivalent to a CO2 laser?
84131. dhogaza at 02:43 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Oh, I see that Sphaerica has ... I disapprove, actually.
84132. dhogaza at 02:42 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       apirate ... "They are offensive in comparing it to Holocaust deniers..." this is a comparison that only exists in the minds of tone trolls, the fact that you buy into it is telling. Where has anyone here made such a comparison? Who is the only poster here who has made the comparison? That would be you ...
84133. L.J. Ryan at 02:42 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       DB 111 ( -Ideological diatribe snipped- ) Response: [DB] Please refrain from the use of all-caps and keep the focus on the science, not on politics and ideologies. My post is ideological and political. But Sphaerica 114 calling skeptics (Deniers)and then equating skeptics to Holocaust deniers is not ideological not political? I suspect you snip based context accuracy and brunt, not as you declared, an objective washing of politics and ideology.
       Response:

       [DB] Greater leeway is allowed than normal, considering the subject matter of this thread.  The appellation Denier is inherent to this thread, unfortunately.

       Introducing yet more politics and ideologies pushes the thread into a train wreck.

       As to Sphaerica's post, he was relating it into the context of denial of the science, which is the subject of this thread.  The part about the Holocaust was a personal opinion, yet also within the context of this thread, as it is a very common reaction from the skeptic contingent.

       Let's all be civil and compose temperate remarks, rather than typing the first or second things that come into our heads.  Or, like me, I end up deleting my own comments upon further reflection.

       Complaints about moderation, unfortunately, tend to get disappeared.

84134. dhogaza at 02:41 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       apirate ... "While I can appreciate your passion, your vitriolic comments are doing more harm than good for your cause." Somehow I doubt that the laws of physics care at all about vitriolic comments ...
84135. apiratelooksat50 at 02:05 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica @ 114, From a Skeptic, not a Denier: While I can appreciate your passion, your vitriolic comments are doing more harm than good for your cause. They are offensive in comparing it to Holocaust deniers, incorrect in assuming skeptics don't accept climate change, and unwise because they misdirect rational discourse. The result creates a polarization and widens the gulf between believers and skepics. If your goal is to teach - then teach. You have an audience here of intelligent and educated people. Remembering that you and I partially agree, I suspect that you categorize people like me who don't fully agree with you as un-intelligent, and therefore not worthy of your teaching. You complained about being mistreated at WUWT, so I would expect that you would treat skeptics on this site with the respect and dignity that you desire. In other posts on this thread, I've stated very clearly my position. We differ solely on our perceptions of the predicted results and to what level mitigation efforts should be enacted.
84136. dhogaza at 02:00 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J Bob: "might blind one to information within. After all, diamonds come from some pretty dirty places. So while one may not agree with an opinion, sometimes there is information to be had, even from WUWT." True, if it weren't for WUWT, I'd be unaware that it snows CO2 dry ice in antarctica and other really fascinating things hidden from us by mainstream science ...
84137. dhogaza at 01:57 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       "but the use of "DENIERS"" ... DB - that was a copy-paste quote on my part, not my own use of all-caps, just to be clear ...
84138. Tom Curtis at 01:49 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J Bob @126: While there is some good information to be had from WUWT and the like, it is indistinguishable at source from the overwhelming fountain of crap which is the normal fare. Consequently, to gain useful information from WUWT you need to vet all information back to original scientific papers, and then read peer reviewed review articles, or failing that recent text books, or at a minimum, sites like Skeptical Science of Real Climate so that you can find the other relevant papers so that you don't get conned into cherry picking data. Given the effort involved, you would get the same information for less effort by going straight to those review articles, textbooks, or decent websites in the first place. You'll even find out about the information the WUWT crowd really thinks is important (and don't want you to think about anything else) from rebuttals (on the websites). It makes as much sense to refer students to WUWT (or allow them to reference it in assignments) as it would to allow students doing an assignment on human exploration of space to reference moon landing conspiracy sites. As it stands, any halfway decent teacher won't even let students reference wikipedia. Why on Earth would they let a student reference WUWT?
84139. KR at 01:33 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob - I thought some of the data on the climate4you site looked familiar. It's run by Ole Humlum. See the two threads on Humlum's previous work here and here. His data is heavily cherry-picked to present a particular point of view, which is exceedingly poor science. As you yourself have noted, it's worthwhile to consider the presenter and the quality of their scientific endeavors. Sites like climate4you, jonova, co2science, WUWT, ClimateRealists, ClimateAudit, and the like are much less credible as a result - their past work (to put it somewhat politely) stinks.
84140. Eric the Red at 01:23 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       michael, The other part of the message is that aerosols had a greater impact on the cooling up until ~1980. Part of the rapid temperature increase was due to atmospheric aerosol reduction. The question is, were these natural or man-made aerosols that predominated? Hence, the longer term temperature record is a better indicator of future changes than the last several years. Also, 1998 was a year of high solar activity.
84141. J. Bob at 01:03 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica 77 & dhogaza, It would appear from the complimentary remarks, I must have struck a nerve. WUWT, RC etc., may have their views. However, comments like; “On another vein, people who suggest that one should look at multiple sources for information are certainly correct, but if those multiple sources include inflammatory, politically oriented, and grossly unbalanced and misinforming sites like ClimateAudit, WUWT, and others... well, you're kidding yourselves. They're fooling you, and you're happily fooling yourselves”. might blind one to information within. After all, diamonds come from some pretty dirty places. So while one may not agree with an opinion, sometimes there is information to be had, even from WUWT.
84142. michael sweet at 01:02 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Ken, Dr. Hansens paper points out that for the past 5 years we have had the lowest solar activity for decades. This low solar output accounts for much of the lower heat accumulation in the past 5 years. Keep in mind that the two hottest years recorded were 2010 and 2005, both when solar output was low. Solar activity is now increasing. New heat records will come much faster as the sun warms again. Hansen postulates that aerosol reflection has reduced the increase in temperature so far from AGW more than models account for. That is bad news in the long run. When the people in China and India get tired of the pollution and reduce aerosols, the planet will substantially warm as aerosols are reduced. This warming cannot be stopped. The take home message from Hansen is that we must take action immediately if we want to avoid the worst of the problems. Your suggestion that Hansens result means we have no worries now is wrong.
84143. KR at 01:02 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob - "If you dig a little deeper at those two sites, you will find the references to the original data sources, (i.e. HadCRUT, NOAA, GISS, UAH, RSS, etc.)." Agreed, and I did see those links. The presentation/summary provided on the climate4you site (which I specifically was discussing), however, was rather less comprehensive, and appeared slanted towards a particular point of view, namely that "It's not warming since 1998". It was a very one-sided presentation. I by no means consider peer-review a panacea against bad or biased science - I could name a number of people who have produced just such 'gems', and there are threads on this very blog that discuss those. But the review process filters out most junk, and later analysis in the field by those who study it results in citations, support, or refutations. That doesn't happen with advocacy papers, as a rule. No one paper stands on it's own. That's why it's important to read more than one paper on a subject before leaping to the conclusion (as so many 'skeptics' have done) that an entire field of study is invalid.
84144. Utahn at 00:53 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Tom Curtis, I agree with just about everything you said, with the "denier/those in denial" exception noted above. Eric and all, as for the whole 2C cutoff for "those in denial" I'm happy to stop talking about it as it is a small if slightly interesting eddy in the ocean of commentary that Internet threads spawn...
84145. mike roddy at 00:53 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Another good one, John, more concise and readable than most reports. Australia and the US have a lot in common- abundant coal and alternative energy, and a coal industry that will literally do anything to maintain market share. Hopelessly dumb and corrupt politicians, too. And strange comment trolls, as Mr. Lambert above. Let's hope that one of us wakes up soon, and brings the other with him.
       Response:

       [DB] Please, can everyone refrain from attaching the appellation of "troll/trolling"?  If you feel a comment is off-topic, challenge the originator of the comment, appropriately and within the confines of the Comments Policy and direct them to a more appropriate thread.

       This forum belongs to all of you.  Self-policing will keep other activities to a minimum.  For those, bring it to the attention of the moderators.  Because sometimes we miss stuff.  Happens.  :(

84146. Dan Olner at 00:45 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Ken - I was thinking the same thing recently about summer arriving here in the UK. The temp data since April had flattened massively, and stayed there. Obviously, I concluded that everyone claiming Summer was indeed on the way were lying toe-rags. (Something to do with climate forcing due to the angle of the Earth to the sun, they said: nonsense! May was cold!) But get this: it got hotter again. Now I'm completely confused. It's almost as if I shouldn't have used a short, few-weeks temperature trend to make any conclusions about what season it was. Breaking out of passive-aggressive mode for a mo: anyone who can understand why it can get colder for a few weeks without upsetting the order of the seasons can also understand why you don't conclude much from short-term climate variation. If you can't understand that, fair enough. If you can, you're just trolling.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Well said.  I always enjoy a bit of good sarcasm!

84147. Tom Curtis at 00:42 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric the Red @119, the probabilities are 2 to 4.5 > 66%, less than 1.5% < 10%. It is not a normal distribution, with probabilities of high values of the high end tail being greater than that of the low end. Still if it where a normal distribution, the probability of less than 2% or greater than 4.5% would be < 34%. Therefore the probability of less than 2% is certainly less than 17%. Therefore the probability of between 1.5 and 2% is less than 17%-10%, or less than 7%. I rounded that to 5% as a rough allowance for the extended high end tail. Those who claim a 1.5% to 2% (of whom there are not many) are pushing the edges of what can be reasonably maintained given available evidence. Oddly there are many more people who would claim a climate sensitivity of 0.5% than those who would claim the far more rational 1.5 to 2%. Or perhaps not so oddly, given the topic of this thread...
84148. J. Bob at 00:42 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       KR @ 101 If you dig a little deeper at those two sites, you will find the references to the original data sources, (i.e. HadCRUT, NOAA, GISS, UAH, RSS, etc.). While they are not the end all, they have some good graphics and a simple ref. pt. to get more basic data. The Rimfrost has the option of getting the long term data (200+ years) for inserting into analysis programs. The long term central & western Europe plots I presented in J. Bob @ 52, used this source. It also has some interesting tools such as a quick country average graph ( including Arctica & Antarctica ). In my case, use of the original or basic data sources, form the basis of my analysis, in trying to get a picture of just what is going on. While “peer” reviewed papers are nice, I was in the process long enough to be wary of swallowing them “hook line & sinker”. I have seen more then I care for of “grant grabbing”, and how papers can be used as a means to a predetermined non-scientific end.
       Response:

       [DB] Be aware that the portion I have struck out is an allegation of impropriety and thus a Comments Policy violation.  Commenting here is a privilege, not a right.  Similarly, adherence to the Comments Policy is mandatory, not optional.  Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the policy & ensure that future comments adhere to it.

       Your participation here is valued, but the focus of the discussion needs to stay on the science itself.

84149. pbjamm at 00:31 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       I am not sure if this thread is responsible or if some other unaccounted for Natural Variation is at play, but there has been a noticeable decline in the levels of civility on this blog. Much unchecked name calling, labeling, and suggestions of mental deficiency. Please mods, stamp this behavior out before it becomes the new norm.
       Response:

       [DB] Agreed.  Disagreement is fine, but civility is a requirement, not an option.

84150. Ken Lambert at 00:21 AM on 2 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       DB Then I will ask you politely. What is the meaning of this statement which you captioned above an already 'corrected' chart? "[DB] SLR plots from UCAR/NCAR need to have the corrections applied to them to account for regional isostatic rebound effects and seasonal effects to be properly filtered out. If using the unadjusted/improperly adjusted data, one risks writing posts on CO2 snow..."
       Response:

       [DB] I was attempting to answer a question about GIA and why, as a local and regional effect rather than a global effect, it needs to be accounted for and incorporated into the UCAR graphics.  Like the one shown/linked to.  Thank you for relaying the UCAR methodology on that for further clarity.

       If my verbiage was less-than-clear on that point, I apologize.  The goal is to be clear, but [I] occasionally fall short in that endeavor.

Prev  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  Next