Recent Comments

Prev  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  Next

Comments 84151 to 84200:

84151. dhogaza at 00:11 AM on 2 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       LJ Ryan: "Those whom accept GHG physics and data, the reasonable skeptics, need only be convinced of the sensitivities the margins...an easier argument. The others, the "Head in the Sand" type the DENIERS...they need be singled out for ridicule. ... Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier? is evidence the only thing melting is once solid support of AGW." In other words, LJ Ryan is a denier who does not accept "GHG physics" (which implies he denies much else known to physicists). And RSVP sticks up for LJ, so RSVP? You, too, proudly wear the "denier" label? Wake me up when CO2 lasers stop working ...
       Response:

       [DB] I realize the all-caps was a tit-for-tat, but I warned LJ so I have to warn you also about their use (not about the acronyms, which are fine, but the use of "DENIERS").

84152. Eric the Red at 23:42 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       I tend to agree with you Curtis. Although I think your math may be off. I suspect that < 1.5 and > 4.5 will add up to 10% based on a normal ball-shaped distribution (you can argue the distribution curve). That leaves 24% to occur between 1.5 and 2.0 C and 4.5 and 5.0 C combined. Assuming the same bell shape, that leaves 12% probability of a climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 2.0 (almost 1 in 8). Not exactly a long shot, but still not the favorite. Those who choose a low value to accommodate their own viewpoints could be classified as deniers. Those who have calculated or researched the science and have determined (difference between chosen) that the climate sensitivity should be low, would not.
84153. adelady at 23:37 PM on 1 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 would be a huge change !" Why not? The Indian-Pacific railway runs east-west between Sydney and Perth travelling through Broken Hill and Port Augusta with a diversion to Adelaide. I can see no good reason why current technology wouldn't develop to allow that train to be completely electric. Anyone who wants personal car travel can either hire at the other end or transport their own vehicle (preferably EV) on the train as well. Similar considerations apply to the north-south route of the Ghan going from Adelaide to Darwin.
84154. Utahn at 23:30 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica, I'm not really *that* into labels. My initial post was really just pointing out to pirate that 4 out of the 5 proposed categories presented were still in some form of denial. Personally, it's not in my nature to label people (maybe it's a weakness). I don't think deniers is inappropriate, but I don't think I can use it. Using that term to me connotes a "lost soul", and while some of the leading deniers are undoubtedly beyond hope, many aren't. But any, however slim, chance of providing information to honest skeptics is likely lost if they are put in one big labeled category. I am also not sure being called a warmist or alarmist makes me feel like I can say "denier". So for now I'm going with "those in denial."
84155. Tom Curtis at 23:28 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       UtahN @104, on this rare occasion I have to disagree with Sphaerica as well. According to the IPCC AR4, it is "likely" that climate sensitivity lies between 2 and 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2, with the most likely value being around 3 degrees C. Translated, as the IPCC so conveniently does for us, that indicates a better than 66% probability given the evidence that the climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5 degrees. The IPCC also conveniently informs us that it is very unlikely (< 10% probability) that the climate sensitivity is below 1.5 degrees C. Taking these two figures together, that means based on available evidence in 2007, the IPCC could not exclude the possibility that there is a one in twenty chance that the climate sensitivity lies between 1.5 and 2 degrees C. (Note, this is not the same as saying there is a 1 in 20 chance.) The point of this is that while 1 in 20 is an epistemic longshot, such longshots often (once in twenty times, oddly enough) come of. Therefore it is rational to pursue them. Somebody who believes the climate sensitivity to be in that range and rationally researches that possibility is not, as a result of that a "denier". Having said that, if they are indeed rationally pursuing the possibility of a low climate sensitivity, they must recognise that on available evidence, it is a long shot. They must be aware that they believe the climate sensitivity is low, but that the evidence is currently against them. If they do not recognise that, then they are in denial about the evidence. Of course, if they do recognise that low climate sensitivity is a long shot, they will not be recommending governments base their policy on that possibility. They would expect the government to base its policy on the concensus opinion. Now I am sure there are such people out there in the scientific community, just as there are people on the other side of the equation; who think the IPCC underestimates climate sensitivity (or the threat of sea level rise, or what have you) but are aware that the evidence does not favour their belief. But I have not met (to my recall) a single person who claims a low climate sensitivity on the internet who does not also either claim that we should not do anything against global warming; or that we should not drop the whole global warming issue from the debate about emissions restrictions (which they purport to support for some other reason, either energy security, of ocean acidification). IN other words, while it is certainly possible to believe in both a fairly low climate sensitivity and not be a denier; the assertion of low climate sensitivity is almost perfectly correlated with denial.

       "Honestly I'm sorry I even mentioned this, in any case after rolling it around on my tongue I'm not sure I like the word "denier" after all. It is, naturally, name calling. Accurate name calling, but still name calling. From now on I am going to use the more cumbersome, "those who are in denial of the science of climate change" or "those in denial" for slightly shorter. It feels like less of an indictment of the person, and implies my stated belief that some (certainly not all) of those in denial will not always be in denial."

       I would see some point in this, except that the denier movement very quickly named themselves "skeptics", and very explicitly did it in order to suggest their greater intellectual integrity than climate scientists, who where very explicitly labelled as not being skeptical. For a while I went along with their self designation, but after a while I could not keep repeating that lie in good conscience. Rather than use a false descriptor in their name, I now use an accurate one - "denier". This is just a case of the denier movements rhetorical sins coming home to roost. Had they chosen a neutral name for themselves, there would not be any issue.
84156. les at 23:26 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       110 RSVP " am technically correct in my statement." No. You are philosophically "correct" if you are a relativist - and, personally, I think there's something quite relativist and post-modern in the attitude of some of the more reactionary anti-science brigade. If that's where you at, you are, of course, at liberty to be so. Again, that is relativism, not 'relativity' which most folks associate which physics theories and which is nothing to do with anthropocentric views of anything.
84157. Alexandre at 23:20 PM on 1 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Rob #16 Actually, my question was about floods in southern Brazil, not southern Amazon. I think my previous post could be more explicit. Thanks for your response, anyway. Before your article, I did not know about this convergence of models on the drying of the southern Amazon.
84158. Ken Lambert at 23:07 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       DB & Camburn #102 I referred to this UCAR Chart of GMSL (Global Mean Sea Level) in this thread: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed DB has posted Tamino's Charts at #102, and cast doubt on the UCAR Charts as somehow uncorrected for GIA and other effects; viz: Response: "[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..." This is what UCAR say on their website: "Prior to release 2011_rel1, we did not account for GIA in estimates of the global mean sea level rate, but this correction is now scientifically well-understood and is applied to GMSL estimates by nearly all research groups around the world. Including the GIA correction has the effect of increasing previous estimates of the global mean sea level rate by 0.3 mm/yr." AND "The GMSL rate corrected for GIA represents changes in water mass and density in the oceans. These changes are thought to be predominantly driven by thermal expansion of the oceans and land ice melt (Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers)." Now go back and look at the UCAR Chart. It captions 'Inverse Barometer applied and GIA corrected" AND "seasonal signals removed". DB - what further corrections would be needed to the UCAR Charts to make them acceptable to you, and why would Tamino's charts be superior measures of global mean sea level?
       Response:

       [DB] "DB has posted Tamino's Charts at #102, and cast doubt on the UCAR Charts as somehow uncorrected for GIA and other effects"

       The only doubt implied here is by you in order to manufacture controversy.  The graphic I used clearly shows GIA already applied, like I said that they needed to have incorporated into them.

       "DB - what further corrections would be needed to the UCAR Charts to make them acceptable to you, and why would Tamino's charts be superior measures of global mean sea level?"

       Again the attempt to manufacture controversy and sow the seeds of doubt.  Tamino's charts and graphics succinctly illustrate a different analysis of the data which is mutually complementary to that provided by UCAR.  To say that they are not, which you are doing here, is dissembling.

       My recommendation would be to simply ask, without invective or snark, for clarification about things you don;t understand.  For you either don't understand them or you are actively choosing to misunderstand or to misrepresent what was said.  If the latter is the case, than the course of action you are prosecuting can be aptly called "moderator trolling".

       If the former, then ask.  Politely.

       If the latter, then desist.  Or you will have to find a different venue to ply your case.

84159. RSVP at 22:45 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       L.J. Ryan 111 "Those stateside will recognize this same tactic employed by the political left to avoid meaningful debate. " ...but it wasn't so long ago when we were hearing, "yer either fur, r 'ginst us".
       Response:

       [DB] Let's not descend into the abyssal morass of politics.

84160. Bob Lacatena at 22:44 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       104, Utahn, You can organize and label deniers in your head any way you like, but creating and using respectable, common labels for them merely gives them credibility that they do not deserve. Deniers are deniers are deniers. And I make no apologies if they take it as an insult, which is exactly how they attempt to use the terms "warmists" and "alarmists." Deniers are like Holocaust deniers. They are exactly like them. There is a clear, undeniable truth which makes them personally, squirmingly uncomfortable, because it means that their cherished way of life may not be the best way, and in fact may be hurting hundreds of millions of people and destroying the futures of their own beloved countries. They can't stomach that and take responsibility for it, or for the future for themselves or others, so they deny. That level of selfishness is not mere polite disagreement. It's down right cruel arrogance. Attempts to justify it with RSVP's "individualism" or J. Bob's conspiracy theories or RW1's faux science or any other methods of minimizing or obfuscating the obvious are just sugar-coated arrogance. They are deniers, no matter how nicely they'd like to dress it up.
84161. Eric the Red at 22:41 PM on 1 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       If you integrated stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols over time, how would that compare with GHG forcing? Eschenbach also stated in the reference, that "the idea of a liner connection between inputs and outputs in a comlex, multiply interconnect, chaotic system like the climate to be a risibile fantasy." He may have gotten those results by chance.
84162. Ken Lambert at 22:40 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Steffan, Flannery and Karoly are trotting out the standard version of AGW alarmism based on the last 30 years of warming temperatures, rising sea levels and other 'multiple lines of warming evidence'. As usual, the vast uncertainties of climate prediction are dwarfed by the big scare of tidal surges and abandoned cities. Trouble is that the last 10 years of climate measurement is not following the AGW script. Surface temperature rise is flattening, Sea level rise is dropping below the touted trend line of 3.1mm per year, and the warming imbalance measured by ocean heat content is flattening, by some measures down by at least 30% and by others - actually cooling. Jim Hansen (AGW guru and lead IPCC author) has recently written a 52 page synopsis which finds a reduction in the warming imbalance from 0.9W/sq.m to 0.59W/sq.m which he mainly attributes to substantial underestimated cooling due to aerosols. His explanations of other factors are highly contentious, including a preposterous 'delayed Pinitubo rebound effect', however the import of his conclusion is the sleeper in this debate. Jim Hansen has abandoned the 'its there but we can't measure it yet' explanation of Dr Trenberth's missing heat travesty, and recognized that at least 30% of the warming 'trapped heat' in the oceans - ain't there at all.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Please stop cherrypicking the last 10 years.  Moreover, Trenberth has a draft paper out where he suggests the location of the 'missing heat':

       "Based upon a number of climate model experiments for the 21st century where there is a stasis in global surface temperature and upper ocean heat content in spite of decade long periods with a known net energy input into the climate system, we infer that the main sink of the missing energy is likely the deep ocean below 275 m depth."

84163. Bob Lacatena at 22:36 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       (Correction to 112... I meant to say that anyone saying sensitivity is in the 2-4 range is explaining or re-iterating the science).
84164. Bob Lacatena at 22:33 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       104, Utahn, 109, Eric, There is a big, big, almost insurmountable difference between saying that 2˚C is at the low end of a range, and saying that climate sensitivity is likely to be 2˚C. Anyone who is counting on 2˚C is in denial. Anyone who is saying that sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2˚C-4˚C or 2˚C-5˚C is in denial. Giving credibility to those who put forth 2˚C as a likely outcome is very unproductive. It's a (fallacious) argument for BAU.
84165. Eric the Red at 22:26 PM on 1 June 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       Thank you for your insight adelady. I admit to being more influenced by the end era were anti-military was more prevalent and free sex and drugs was rampant (I attended the University of Michigan in the 70s).
84166. L.J. Ryan at 21:54 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       The more appropriate name for this blog post should be Divide and Conquer. Those whom accept GHG physics and data, the reasonable skeptics, need only be convinced of the sensitivities the margins...an easier argument. The others, the "Head in the Sand" type the DENIERS...they need be singled out for ridicule. Those stateside will recognize this same tactic employed by the political left to avoid meaningful debate. This readers, is the Saul Alinsky approach to science. Ironically, the simple fact John Cook deems it necessary to pose the question: Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier? is evidence the only thing melting is once solid support of AGW. ( -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.

84167. RyanStarr at 21:37 PM on 1 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       @dana1981 (+others), as you say Ljungqvist ends at 2000, I thought roughly that but with such a long time frame it's hard to be sure (so not 1950 CBD). At the year 2000 it's just a smidgeon above 0, close to 0.075. The Hadcrut overlay, for the next 10 years, rises a further 0.7 degrees, in 10 years it rises 0.7 degrees! Something has to be in error here. OK Ljungqvist is a reconstruction so we expect the accuracy of that to fall well below an instrument record, are we saying Ljungqvist's late 20th century result is in error by up to 0.7 C?
       Moderator Response:

       [dana1981] The error is that your "10 years" is more like 30 years.  Each yellow dot represents a new decadal average.  Some of the red data is included in Ljungqvist's study, but he omitted the final data point.

84168. RSVP at 21:18 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       les 108 The "present" goes beyond subjectivity, as it is tied to one's inertial frame of reference. All people on Earth experience this "present historical moment" simultaneously for all practical purposes, however I am technically correct in my statement. It was Glenn Tamblyn who described our natural "anthropocentric view of the Universe" as being archaic, when in fact it is innate and as real as the CO2 we all breath.
84169. Eric the Red at 20:44 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Utahn, I agree. To label someone a denier because they believe the cliamte sensitivity is closer to 2C than 3C is absurd given the large uncertainty and range of sensitivity values. Here is a paper which seems to discount the possibility of high sensitivity (>4.5). http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/probrevised.pdf Funny how the both of us were believed (by other posters) to adhere to a climate sensitivity of 2C just because we would not call them deniers. I looked back at both of our posts, and found nothing that would indicate that either of us adhere to that value, only that we cannot eliminate it from the range of probabilities. Personally, I agree with your assessment of name calling, and will reserve the term, "those in denial" for those who actually think the climate sensitivity is zero.
84170. okatiniko at 20:40 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Adelady, you may believe that the welfare of your grandchildren will be absolutely different following the SLR rate (does it mean that you believe that your own welfare would have been totally different if the SLR would have been, for instance, 6 mm/yr, so 6 cm/decade instead of 2 , in the XXTh century ? how would your own life have changed ?) However what I said is that it is clear from figure 15 that the SLR will be pretty insensitive to any policy we could adopt - the uncertainty ranges largely overlap and the increase will continue for centuries if Rahmstorf model is true. Meaning that the SLR is already in the pipe and, even we stopped totally now any GES emission, it would continue rising and reach one meter around the turn of the century. The differences between the scenarios being only about one decade or so. So it is actually pretty much like a natural phenomenon that you cannot. Whatever you think it will cause, you'd better prepare your children by telling them it will happen anyway. Now I doubt very much that all infrastructures you can see around you will be unchanged at the end of the century. And cutting off the use of fossil fuels will probably change much more your way of life than a few dozens of centimeter of water on the coast. You live in a huge country : do you have any idea of how travelling across it without oil for instance ? that would be a huge change !
       Response:

       [dana1981] Sea level rise is far from the only consequence of climate change.  As Thompson has said, there will be some degree of mitigation, adaption, and suffering.  The less we mitigate, the more we will have to adapt and suffer.

84171. Rob Painting at 19:36 PM on 1 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Alexandre @ 6 - Southern Amazonia will dry out according to most models, because the dry season intensifies and becomes longer. But heavier downpours are expected too. Sorry for the bad news, but they are projections, and might be missing some important details that change the overall picture.
84172. les at 19:30 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       108 RSVP "Relativity suggests that each person is the center of his own universe." Possible physics abuse alert! Neither the general nor special theorise of relativity do that. You probably mean Relativism
84173. Rob Painting at 19:21 PM on 1 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Sphaerica @ 7 - I'm unaware of an El Nino prediction for later this year NASA, the BOM & The Japan Met are predicting El Nino, others disagree. I'm basing my prediction on this. We'll see how that works out.
84174. Kevin C at 18:59 PM on 1 June 2011
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       There's a nice article over at weather underground explaining the Zhang paper in more comprehensible terms. With pictures. It's here: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=194
84175. RSVP at 18:12 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Glenn Tamblyn 61 "The last vestiges of the Anthropocentric view of the Universe reside in the conservative, individualist personality type." Relativity suggests that each person is the center of his own universe. As there might be some truth to AGW, this is not the problem. It comes as a package deal, "deniers" being all those who are not with the program. Thanks to Nature however, humans were created with that individualistic spirit you so much distain.
84176. adelady at 18:03 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       okatiniko, it's not just where people 'live'. It's where important infrastructure that supports people who live all over a city's region. The 3 biggies, apart from the obvious one of port facilities both for freight and for fishing fleets, would be sewage processing plants, power plants using ocean water for cooling and airports established on flat land near coasts. Less frequent local effects would be saltwater intrusion into groundwaters and wetlands as well as further upriver in some locations. "... your life has nothing in common with your grandparents' one." I beg to differ. In all the important things, my life is a lot like my grandparents. My main interest, as was theirs, is the welfare of my children (and their children). I use technology they never dreamt of, I've never lived through a world war waiting for husbands or children to return, and I don't attend church every week. But people are just people. My concern for my family, my friends, my neighbourhood and society at large is very like the concerns of previous generations. Hopefully, coming generations will have the same chances I had - rather than the ghastly privations of worldwide wars and worldwide depressions of my parents and grandparents.
84177. Dikran Marsupial at 17:45 PM on 1 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Michael Hauber The trend you plot is not robust, for example the 1974-2009 plot has a warming trend in the Pacific: Having experimented with the plotting software, the results depend strongly on whether the start and end years were El-Nino's or La Nina's or somewhere in the middle. The difference between two years is not a robust estimator of a trend.
84178. Nick Palmer at 17:37 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Okatiniko at #4 People can adapt to a lot. They can adapt to living in a tornado zone. They can adapt to living in earthquake zone. They could adapt to living in a zombie apocalypse. So what? Why should we have to? What appears to be your underlying denialism ignores the blindingly obvious fact that it would be breathtakingly stupid to pursue a course of inaction that brings about a nasty situation that we would have to "adapt" to, that we could avoid by taking action. Only an in idiot or denier could foresee something bad happening and do nothing to stop it manifesting.
84179. scaddenp at 16:18 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Hmm, looking at previous comments I'd say you were resting your ideas on faith not science. What's the future evidence at which you would decide that you were mistaken instead? For how long do the predictions have to hold? (it's 35 since first model prediction and that holding okay).
84180. Michael Hauber at 16:11 PM on 1 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       The short term (that is 30 year) cooling trend in ENSO region: I agree there is a robust connection between ENSO and Amazon. I am skeptical of a link between AGW and ENSO in the direction required to cause a drying ENSO.
84181. Riduna at 16:03 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Climate Show Episode 13: James Hansen and The Critical Decade
       In this Episode of the Climate Show, lack of government support for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was noted. A comment was made to the effect that the Prime Minister when told of the harm caused by GHG emissions had responded by saying he could produce scientists who would refute that GHG emissions were dangerous. Has the Prime Minister been challenged to produce a scientist who can substantiate that Global Warming is not caused by GHG emissions arising from human activity. Why has the PM not been publicly challenged by NZ’s climate scientists to produce a single scientist who can offer proof which has not already been shown to be wrong? It is all very well to lament that NZ does not have the equivalent of the Australian Climate Change Committee – but does that prevent NZ climate scientists from forming their own Climate Change Council? Does it prevent such a Council from making statements calling for government action, warning of the consequences of not doing so, discrediting and proving statements of deniers to be wrong?
84182. okatiniko at 15:34 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       It is certainly alarming since the projections of SLR show that it does depend only very weakly on the scenario, and that's because the acceleration term described by Rahmstorf et al. is a very long term one and is quite insensitive to the details of the future evolution of GES emission.In other words it is already set up now. But we have to keep in mind that in 100 years, most of the current infrastructures won't exist anymore. Which part of Sydney or Perth did exist 100 years ago ? But very strangely, you seem to think that people will keep living in those parts of the country that will be flooded "almost every month" . But just think of what "flooded every month" really means : it is just the part of the coast that is flooded at each high tide (actually twice a month) ! and it already exists everywhere. Nobody leaves here, or if we really want to live there, we just build some levees to protect the place. And the new building are not really a cost since they will be build anyway in all cases. Why would people living in 100 years be unable to do the same reasonable things as we do now ? humanity has always adapted to varying conditions, including SLR that exists since the end of glaciations. It has adapted to huge changes of way of life since the beginning of industrial civilization - your life has nothing in common with your grandparents' one. Do you think that your current life would have been absolutely impossible if the SLR would have been twice or three times as high as what it has really been in the XXth century ? why ?
84183. Ari Jokimäki at 15:32 PM on 1 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Sorry, I'm not ignoring all of you, but I don't think I have much time today to participate to the interesting discussion here. I'll be back later, though.
84184. barry1487 at 15:27 PM on 1 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       This is the following graph on BPL's page; showing how the estimates have converged over time. just the sort of thing I'm thinking of. Thanks again Alexandre.
84185. barry1487 at 15:22 PM on 1 June 2011
       Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
       Thanks for the link, Alexandre. I'll check it out after this post. Eric, yes, I thought of that, too. Is there a way to amend the idea to account for publishing abilities/re-published papers, etc, that a skeptic would find acceptable? Even if the cluster was centred outside consensus values, at least the extreme outliers would still be isolated (I suppose). A temporal x-axis, like the graph in the top post, would also show how the science has developed. In the climate sensitivity example, the bars would shorten (I suppose) as ranges become more contained over time. A short-hand way of showing diminishing uncertainty - on most, but not all topics.
84186. Charlie A at 15:10 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       @103 Adelady says "my reading is 40-60 years for 'fast'" ... "Long-term? 100 years more than that." The fast response is at 2000 year after CO2 increase. 40-60 years is definitely fast, as is 160 years. The 3C "fast" response quoted by Michael Sweet in #91 is only fast compared to geologic time scales such as CO2 removal by the weathering of rocks. The GISS-ER model transient sensitivity after 70 years is 1.5C/doubling of CO2. http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
84187. Stevo at 14:52 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Thanks, Dana, for a very informative article. Opponants of the report accuse it of containing alarmist language. From the quotes in this article it seems sober and measured to me.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Thanks.  I think certain parties confuse "alarmist" with "alarming".  I agree, there's nothing alarmist about this report, but it does contain some alarming information.  Unfortunately reality is rather alarming right now.

84188. macoles at 14:52 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       As a Perthite my "wow" moment in Section 2 was on page 35: Figure 22. Trend in total annual stream flow into Perth dams 1911-2010 I knew we were short on water here, but I've never seen it in historical context like that before. Looks like more desalination plants will have to be built, and hopefully using windpower.
84189. alan_marshall at 14:49 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       Dana, well done! The Climate Commission is an important initiative of the Australian government, and high profile Dr Tim Flannery, author of "The Weather Makers", is an ideal chairman. Their report is timely and your summary is helpful.
       Response:

       [dana1981] Thanks very much.  I agree it's a very good report.

84190. Utahn at 14:44 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Boy, I wish I hadn't been unable to get back to this until now, because I probably could have spared folks some trouble. Sphaerica:"There is no middle ground, let alone 24 flavors of middle ground." I disagree and find it's useful to at least to myself categorize deniers - it helps me to understand the best approach to discussion. I still think there is hope in discussion with many. "Second, I personally think (and by 'think' I mean that everything that I've read and understand about) your own adherence to a mere 2˚C per doubling as a likely or even reasonable possibility is another form of denial. The current consensus is 3˚C or higher, and every new study confirms this while leaning towards the 'and higher' direction. There is very little reason to think that 2˚C per doubling is in the mix. Expecting 2˚C is denial." I do not personally "adhere" to 2˚C. I was just laying out a person's stated climate sensitivity below which I am going to say denial begins. To me 2˚C is perfectly reasonable as a lower bound to label someone "denier", and is the same as the lower bound of the AR4 estimate of climate sensitivity, and with a few papers even recently (look at BPLs chart by time of major GCM estimates for example). Are you all saying 2˚C is not a reasonable *lower bound* for sane discussion of climate sensitivity to doubling CO2? I'm sorry if my initial post was not clear, but I did say "less than 2"! Honestly I'm sorry I even mentioned this, in any case after rolling it around on my tongue I'm not sure I like the word "denier" after all. It is, naturally, name calling. Accurate name calling, but still name calling. From now on I am going to use the more cumbersome, "those who are in denial of the science of climate change" or "those in denial" for slightly shorter. It feels like less of an indictment of the person, and implies my stated belief that some (certainly not all) of those in denial will not always be in denial.
84191. adelady at 14:33 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       @92, Charlie "Over what time period do you think Hansen meant when he discusses "fast" climate sensitivity?" Didn't find anything explicit on a quick look (obviously too quick) but my reading is 40-60 years for 'fast'. The common reference to 'in the pipeline' and that current warming is the consequence of CO2 from the 70s. Long-term? 100 years more than that.
84192. KR at 14:15 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       dhogaza - I'll refer you to an illustration that I've pointed out to folks claiming the radiative greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics. Cartoon - warning, mature language
84193. Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 1 June 2011
       Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped
       seeker25801 @35, according to the people most in the know, global warming is almost certainly occurring, and it is very highly probable that human activities are the major cause. Whether you think they are telling the full story or not, it is certain they know the full story better than anybody else on Earth. So the question you should be asking, seeing you so strongly disagree with them, is what is it that they know that you do not? If you read the arguments on this site, you will find out, for contrary to your insinuation, the climate scientists, and this site do tell the full story, so far as it is known.
84194. KR at 14:11 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob - "One might also look at who is doing the articles/papers/data, and who is supplying the $’s." That is indeed one of my criteria, J. Bob. Is the data coming from a reputable scientist who regularly publishes peer reviewed works that are well received? Or is the work coming from a "think tank" or other advocacy group, such as the George Marshall Institute, GreenPeace, or the like (particularly from ones who do not disclose their funding)? Because if it's coming from a grant funded scientist, the likelyhood that it's driven by political influence is fairly small. Whereas if it comes from an advocacy group it's inherently biased - towards the positions the group advocates - not driven by the actual science. That is, after all, why advocacy groups exist. Advocacy groups works, data, and conclusions are therefore inherently less credible.
84195. KR at 14:05 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob - Your reference to climate4you was, indeed, fascinating. Majority of plots 1979 on only, very few instrumental records prior to that, most of those from local areas. Heavy focus on GISP2 (a single ice core, not a global temperature), several Central England temperature records (hmm, seeing a pattern here?), statements such as ""net changes since 1998 appear to be small" (see Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?)... Given the cherry-picking and short term focus, I don't know that I would trust the data or the presentation thereof from that site. It doesn't meet my requirements for presenting all of the data, avoiding cherry-picking, or using realistic periods of time for determining climate trends. I would not consider that a good resource - go to the peer reviewed papers!
84196. Bob Lacatena at 14:02 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J. Bob, I'd also point out that there is a very clear comments policy, which is listed absolutely all over the place, and usually moderators provide warnings. People must be repeat offenders. Even then very, very few people are actually banned (like I am from WUWT). They are warned, and when they continue to violate the rules, their gibberish... not anything scientific, just the gibberish... is slashed. WUWT is the wild west, with one sheriff in town. He deletes what he wants, and you never see the stuff that's deleted. Here, there is a rhyme and reason to what happens. There, it is at the whim of Lord Watts. And I would also point out that I have had comments edited by moderators here. The rules are the rules. They apply to everyone. They're just broken far more frequently by deniers, and usually those same deniers are so lost in the science that they can't even see that they're breaking the rules.
84197. dhogaza at 13:59 PM on 1 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 1: The Science
       KR: The problem, of course, is that Tamino is a professional statistician who specialized in time series analysis, which proves he's a commie-pinko dictatorship-minded freak, because everyone knows that casinos lose tons of money at the slots despite these do-gooder commie stats types trying to educate the public that the house is rigged ... The trolls here, of course, know better ...
84198. adelady at 13:58 PM on 1 June 2011
       If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
       Eric "...it was directed at any policy that inhibited freedom." I'm more mature (OK, older) than you, and my reading of the times was that it was about personal freedom. Being young people in the main, that was about Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, but it was also about the freedoms denied by corporate and government restrictions on personal behaviours and circumstances. Denying jobs entirely on the basis of race and gender, paying less on the basis of race or gender, and sacking for things like women marrying or anyone divorcing. And conscription is not a favourite item for those wanting personal freedom to choose. Speaking to the 5 years 'more mature' member of this household, his view is that the movement was anti-capitalist and anti-military rather than anti-state. 'Our government should change' rather than 'We want no government at all'. You might be more influenced by the extreme ends of the general movement in much the same way as many women don't identify as feminists because their image is of the 'overalls and no lipstick' very public extreme end of that movement. All you need to do is to juxtapose an hour of the music of The Beatles or The Beach Boys or Jimi Hendrix and an hour spent reading Ayn Rand. (I never managed the whole hour, let alone the whole book. The afore-mentioned older person said he found the whole book amusing, he saw it as a kind of self-parody.) The idea that we of that liberal-minded generation wanted libertarianism in the untrammelled corporate power facing hamstrung, limited government style is just not true. We didn't like the "Little boxes on the Hillside" lifestyle, that's true. We wanted attention, and money, for the issues of poverty, injustice, violence, pollution - all of which require better government, not no government. Just as now.
84199. Bob Lacatena at 13:56 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       88, J. Bob,

       ...and who is supplying the $’s.

       This is the sort of conspiracy nonsense that shows when someone has no hope of understanding the science. If you honestly believe that some guy who's making $50K or $75K a year to spend half of his life trudging through the Arctic or the Amazon, or hoping to write a paper that will get him noticed for a few years among his peers, with a maximum attainable salary after that success of merely exactly what he's making now... because contrary to conventional wisdom, winning a research grant does not pay for a new Ferrari for each of the head researchers. Researchers get paid a salary by their universities, are expected to teach, and to do research and publish. They get research grants to go towards equipment and assistants to allow them to continue to pursue viable research. If they don't get grants, and publish, and teach, and work, then they fail. A career in science is not a stepping stone to babes, bucks and fame. "Who is supplying the $s" is a joke. My daughter was listening to a documentary today that went on and on about how coal is "Americas energy" that creates jobs and is crucial to the economy. That's where the money is going... not into research and science, but into propaganda. You're right about looking at the money, though. Is it coming from and going to real research, just as is done in agriculture and medicine and biology and most other branches of science, or is it coming from an energy industry with an agenda and trillions of dollars of income at stake, and going into propaganda?
84200. dhogaza at 13:53 PM on 1 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Oh, and BTW, J. Bob ... reminding us of the fact that Watts is an a-hole isn't likely to warm our hearts to you. Just sayin' Glad to hear that you have denialist cred, though ... wear your denialism badge with pride, you've earned it.

Prev  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  1685  1686  1687  1688  1689  1690  1691  Next