Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 Next
Comments 84651 to 84700:
-
Eric the Red at 21:32 PM on 27 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
I feel compelled to comment on the vikings in Greenland (maybe its a name thing). I seriously doubt anyone would believe that Greenland was "green" during the Viking colonization, except for small tracts of land along the southern coasts, and as Tom points out, are still green today. The ice cap has been there for perhaps a hundred thousand years (maybe more), and likely to remain so for a similar era (maybe less). In short, the entirety of human history, as Tom stated. Records during the viking era are sketchy at best, but most indicate increases in sea ice extent as the major reason for the demise of the viking settlements. The vikings in Greenland required constant supplies which waned (and eventually ceased) with the increasing sea ice. Anecdotal evidence, along with studies like the following all point in this direction: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DanBotkin08-d/MorosAndrewsetal06-DriftIceHolocene.pdf I know nothing about English wines, avoiding them like the plague. -
witsendnj at 21:16 PM on 27 May 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
I love the idea of transformation through theatre. But the premise that the '60's were fueled by fun of any sort seems dubious or at least overly simplistic to me, having lived through that era in my formative years. I remember quite a bit of outrage, fear, and rebellion (and far too much fun too!). And as you pointed out, currently - at least for the wealthiest citizens of earth who have the largest footprint whether it is carbon or other sorts of pollution - there is a smorgasbord of fun to be had already, without any (perceived) sacrifice required. I think it will be nigh impossible to persuade such individuals to convert to more socially responsible forms of entertainment (let alone increase prices by pricing externalities) when it's difficult to compete with the surfeit of artificially cheap toys that mesmerize them now. It's also an uphill battle to convince people to relinquish creature comforts/luxuries for the betterment of the environment in the future when so many of the "leaders" of the green movement do have insanely and inexcusably disproportionate personal impacts. I'm thinking of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who before his latest misogynist embarrassment was supposed to exemplify a green Republican, and yet rather than move to the state capital, he commuted to his duties as governor by private jet. Okay that's an egregious example but there are a number of leaders in the movement who shall remain nameless that fly around the world giving talks, raising funds for their philanthropic organizations and selling their books. Can anyone blame the casual, unenlightened observer for smelling hypocrisy? If there is really a planetary emergency, why don't those who warn of it behave like there is? Given the dire prospects faced by humanity, not to mention every other species subject to our domination and exploitation, I think some sheer terror based on actual, unprecedented events - like the Joplin tornado...the floods in Columbia, Pakistan, Tennessee...and the heatwaves, droughts and wildfires in Texas, Canada, Europe and Russia (and that list is by no means comprehensive) - is in order, and would be more effective. Having said that, I wish I could be an extra in the film! -
quokka at 21:07 PM on 27 May 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
I've thought about this quite a bit, having been involved in the anti Vietnam war movement since high school and missing out on conscription by a whisker by being barely too young. Saved by "It's Time" and Labor in 1972. One thing should be fairly obvious is that the prospect of being conscripted and having one's bodily parts rearranged in a stinking unconscionable colonial war in Vietnam certainly focuses the mind and lends a great sense of immediacy. Very important in both Australia and the US, but the outrage was widespread especially in Europe fed by images such as the NLF soldier being dragged by a rope tied around the feet behind an armoured personnel carrier. Or the little girl, naked, fleeing the napalm. This together with a succession of colonial wars such as the French war in Algeria, the struggle for civil rights in the US, an emerging feminist movement, the ever present threat of nuclear war and various events such as the 1968 student uprising in Paris and the Prague Spring and situation was ripe for rejection of the whole stinking setup. Influence of pacificism, internationalism and the left in culture - music , film and literature both fed on the politics and in turn fed back into it. This was a unique confluence of historical circumstances and there is really nothing comparable today. Young people now do not understand how different it was - and not in a good way. For example women were not allowed in public bars in Qld - a situation that is utterly unthinkable today. It should go without saying that trying to produce some echo of the '60s is pretty much doomed to failure. Hansen is absolutely correct - there is ultimately no substitute for feet on the streets. It is not just a matter of protest - it is a matter of exercising countervailing political power to the political power of the Murdochs and fellow travelers. Easy to say and not so easy to do. And it wouldn't half help if popular culture could rise above "Australia's Got Talent". But I think is comes down to something other than this: "I would suggest that far from being trivial, those are some important questions for social scientists to muse over." With all due respects, social scientists have to do a little more than "muse over" the issue. They must be activists as were some of the outstanding academics of the '60s perhaps exemplified by Chomsky. Furthermore, astute political thinking is not really the property of social scientists - as a group they are probably not very good at it and it is sorely needed. One learns also by doing, as well as thinking. @Arkadiusz Semczyszak You reckon 5 million people died AFTER the end the American war on Vietnam? Sources please! -
les at 21:02 PM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
18 - damorbel "Of course they can be experts in multiple disciplines but what is lacking is evidence of their expertise in the 'other' disciplines." OK, so why did you say "Which of these Nobel Prize winners has published on climate matters?"?!?!? As for your new statement - take a look at the biographies; you've a pretty good spread of disciples and even un-obvious things like Rubia's interested in 'other' nuclear fuel systems. More over, they're calling for actions on the issues you list... not proposing policy which, I suppose they feel, is the job of domain specialists. 20 - "a link?" try this one, from the above article http://globalsymposium2011.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/The-Stockholm-Memorandum.pdf You will see that this is not just about climate change (I said "core findings" for a reason) So again, why ask: "Which of these Nobel Prize winners has published on climate matters?"? Especially if you now feel they should have expertise in, some 'divers fields' other than what they have already... bit confusing. -
damorbel at 20:39 PM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
Re #18 les you wrote:- "Certainly they've agreed with the core findings" I see nothing to justify this; do you have a link? -
damorbel at 20:37 PM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
Re #21 & #2 You asked "Why do they have to be experts in just one particular disceplen?!?!?". Of course they can be experts in multiple disciplines but what is lacking is evidence of their expertise in the 'other' disciplines. If these well respected Symposium participants are to contribute successfuly to the stated goals of the Symposium; which are, let me remind you:- 1/ Reaching a more equitable world; 2/ Managing the climate - energy challenge; 3/ Creating an efficiency revolution; 4/ Ensuring affordable food for all; 5/ Moving beyond green growth; 5/ Reducing human pressures; 6/ Strengthening Earth System Governance; 8/ Enacting a new contract between science and society. What is to be provided really should be more than just a cursory references to (justified) reputations in their diverse fields. They are not alone in having such goals and if the Symposium is to be useful then much more is needed than acknowledgement of past success in (sometimes) rather recondite research. -
Darcindora at 18:58 PM on 27 May 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
Creativity in all its forms is a great motivator for change, with a touch of subversive and maybe a smidgeon of cool for good measure -
Rob Painting at 18:26 PM on 27 May 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
Mandas -So which one isn't fun? And. -
Riccardo at 17:38 PM on 27 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Arkadiusz Semczyszak maybe you didn't notice, Dr. Bickmore reproduced Spencer's work. As for your point 1, then, it's Spencer that should eventually be blamed. As for point 3, Dr. Bickmore showed that a flawed methodology produced a wrong result. Should have, by chance, produced the correct results, it is still flawed. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:14 PM on 27 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Post this on (4.) the SkS is here -
mandas at 17:14 PM on 27 May 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
".....The 1960’s arguably were powered by Sex, Drugs, and Rock ‘n Roll....One or two of those can be legitimately called fun...." So which one isn't fun? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:07 PM on 27 May 2011Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
Okay. Briefly. 1. Your criticism is "too hot" - too poor in the reference - do not exhaust the subject, in one word: biased. 2. Simple models are: OHC - climate sensitivity - the better. 3. Result (final conclusion) Spencer is correct - it really: similar to Barreiro and Masina 2011. What is your opinion about this paper and Xie and Vallis 2011? 4. What would you have found errors in the analysis cited by me (conclusions regarding OHC - climate sensitivity - are similar to those of Spencer)? -
les at 16:44 PM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
20 - Shoyemore I kind-a think it's something more than a "Brains Trusts who have considered the evidence" and agree / disagree with the findings. Certainly they've agreed with the core findings - but their focus seems to be more about what to do. And that takes a multi-disciplinary approach, lead by folks with some degree of authority across the board. This is the point damorbel decided to ignore, which is why s/he couldn't answer my question. -
shoyemore at 16:14 PM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
@Jeff T #16 I look upon the Stockholm Nobel Laureate Symposium as the ultimate scientific unbiased jury. They certainly cannot be accused of "grant whoredom", and could all retire comfortably on their money and reputations, which are unimpeachable. Unless they are all raving socialists, which I doubt. They are also men and women of formidably independent intellects from different disciplines, so "groupthink" can hardly apply. The amount of agreement among the Nobel holders (among whom are at least two atmospheric physicists) should make any climate science contrarian think again, but probably won't. So this is not an Appeal to Authority. It reports Findings of one of the world's foremost Brains Trusts who have considered the evidence -
moctical at 15:54 PM on 27 May 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
Stephan, you might want to familiarize yourself with generational theory of the saeculum e.g. "The Fourth Turning" by William Strauss and Neil Howe. They breakdown Anglo-American histroy into four recurring phases, perpetually fuelled by four recurring generational archetypes. According to the theory, in the 60s and 70s we were in an Enlightenment phase where we undergo an inner revolution. At present we've just entered the Crisis phase during which there will be an 'outer' revolution where old systems will be replaced by new (following some form of struggle). The outcome is not necessarily positive or negative, only that some revolution will occur. -
Bern at 15:30 PM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
Stevo: that's a good point - I haven't noticed any mention of this symposium in the MSM at all, only on RealClimate & here. The only MSM coverage of global warming here lately has been about what a great big new tax it'll be, and how much it'll cost, and how it'll ruin the entire economy if we wean ourselves off the fossil fuel addiction. Actually, two or three articles I read in today's newspapers seemed to take it as given that the only "solution" to CO2 emissions is to switch from coal to gas. -
Stevo at 14:06 PM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
Jeff T @ 16. I agree that, strictly speaking, this page may be off topic for this site, it might be worth keeping it here as a reminder to us that there is some activity happenning in the public sphere that is not following a 'skptical' adjenda. There is every chance that this symposium will produce decisions or ideas that will be relevant to spreading science based reasoning to the greater public (i.e. non-scientists like myself) and Its my hope that this site will report on them because I'm not very confident that the mainstream media will. -
Tom Curtis at 14:01 PM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
Berényi Péter @206:"Come on. Until 1943 there was a single GHCN station south of 60S, BASE ORCADAS (-60.75 -44.72). Therefore the huge 1950-1980 positive temperature anomaly in the south (relative to 1919-1949) is entirely believable, isn't it?"
We should also note that: 1)There was also a very large whaling fleet operating in Antarctic waters; and 2)With the exception of water near the West Antarctic Peninsular, and hence Orcadas Base, the anomaly south of about 60 degrees is not shown in the anomaly map you are objecting to. Your objection, therefore, is without substance. -
Tom Curtis at 13:50 PM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
Berényi Péter @197, the diurnal temperature range data for Australia are taken from the Australian high-quality climate site network, which has been vetted for the quality of the stations, with stations rating poor(4) or very poor(5) on a five point scale having been removed from the network. I have seen some attempts by Australian deniers to question the network, and they are pathetic. Indicative of how desperate they are, they have argued that one outback site should be classified as urban because it is located near some graded runways, ie, because it is near (within 50 meters) of exposed dirt in an area which is 80% exposed dirt. is a discussion of another site they considered to be "urban". Had there been substantial issues to raise, I'm sure the deniers would have latched on to them. By inference, therefore, the genuine efforts of the Bureau of Meteorology to maintain high quality meteorological data have paid of. Further, aerosol optical depth is not well quantified, and indirect aerosol effects on cloud albedo are even less well quantified, but aerosol emissions are well known. Therefore, whatever the net aerosol forcing for a given aerosol load, we know that it increased from the 1950's through to the 1970's, decreased there after, and has been increasing again over the last decade:
-
adelady at 13:43 PM on 27 May 2011If It's Not Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll, what is it? Creativity maybe?
I like the mall idea. My longstanding preference is for an image from a more innocent past is something like The Jetsons. The unstated technological marvel there was, of course, the 'too cheap to meter' promise of nuclear power. But the idea of clean skies (not necessarily including flying cars) and an abundant lifestyle is perfectly in accord with ideas of both modernity and clever use of resources. -
Tom Curtis at 12:53 PM on 27 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Dr Jay Cadbury, PhD, as you are so determined to defend Happer's pontifications, perhaps you could consider the following claim:"There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change. A well-known example is the medieval warming, about the year 1000, when the Vikings settled Greenland (when it was green) and wine was exported from England."
(My emphasis) Given the authority you obviously attribute to Happer, perhaps you could point out whether you agree with him that: 1) That Greenland was green in the MWP (or at any time in human history); and 2) England exported wines in the MWP. As you are also Happer's friend, perhaps you can elicit from him his sources of this information. For my part, I believe that Greenland has been covered by an icecap for the entirety of human history, and that describing the MWP as the period when Greenland "was green" because at that time, as todady, a few square kilometers on the southern coast are green on a seasonal basis is misleading (to say the least). I also believe that while England had 42 vinyards at the time of the Domesday Book, that was partly because wine preservation was rudimentary so that the superior wines of France and Spain all to easily turned to vinegar when transported to England, and that consequently, there would be no export market for the inferior English wines transported the other way. Absent evidence to the contrary, it appears to me that Happer has simply embellished the well known reports of MWP English wines because, as is well known, there are over 300 commercial Engish vinyards today, not to mention Sweden, Scotland, and soon to be, Norway. Given knowledge of modern viniculture in England, 42 vineyards really isn't that impressive, but if they were exported, well, that's something you can base some spin on. So exported they were, for need trumps truth every time in spin. (Or so it seems to me.) Now, you appear to have been defending the right of Happer to make up his own facts because he has a PhD, and lectures at Princeton. If that is not your claim, then we can expect clear citations proving MWP wine exports from England. -
Jeff T at 11:58 AM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
Outside of introducing the interesting term "anthropocene" for those who missed it at Real Climate, this post seems off-topic for Skeptical Science. It doesn't present or discuss any evidence; it is just an appeal to authority. SkS usually does much better. -
Mike Lemonick at 11:28 AM on 27 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Rob@97 says: "Mike @ 95... Princeton can't screen how a tenured professor chooses to represent his credentials but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there are some meetings going on at Princeton following Happer's piece that are very close to coming to fisticuffs. Happer has clearly chosen to make a public and highly politicized statement on behalf of the George C Marshall Institute BUT chosen to identify himself using his Princeton credentials (and curiously omitting his GMI connection). Princeton would have every right to be utterly furious about this kind of activity. It'll be curious to see if the university responds publicly in some manner." It won't. Happer's statements are the equivalent of someone who keeps passing gas at a party. It's embarrassing, and you'd be happier if they left, but you just politely ignore it. Happer's Princeton credentials are genuine, and he has every right to use them, even though it makes sensible people cringe. Really, you might as well give up on this, unless you like banging your head against a wall. -
Berényi Péter at 11:26 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
[DB] More cherries for BP Come on. Until 1943 there was a single GHCN station south of 60S, BASE ORCADAS (-60.75 -44.72). Therefore the huge 1950-1980 positive temperature anomaly in the south (relative to 1919-1949) is entirely believable, isn't it?Response:[DB] Curious, that the temperature records show an inexorable rise every single year, isn't it? ;)
Let us not focus on the few cherry-flavored flat or declining spots lest we miss that overall rising signal in the noisy background:
[Source]
-
scaddenp at 11:12 AM on 27 May 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
The ice is not melted by conductive energy transfer so specific heat is irrelevant. Melting is from radiative energy transfer - ie the energy is the from sun and more of it is trapped because of the CO2. Perhaps you should do the math. What does an extra 1.5W/m2 (global annual average all forcing) give you? Also warmer water onlapping Antarctica increases calving which I believe remains the main source of ice loss in the Antarctic. -
adelady at 11:10 AM on 27 May 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
Rosco, sorry I hit the button too soon. Melting. The issue is that much of the ice does not melt in situ. It thins, weakens and breaks off and the ocean transports it away in the form of icebergs. These may not melt for quite a long time after they've subtracted their bulk from their source glacier. -
adelady at 11:06 AM on 27 May 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
Rosco, see the Intermediate version of this post. The land ice on Antarctica does not 'melt' by direct heating from air or insolation so much as it loses the balance it formerly had between gains and losses. The losses are (mainly) attributable to the heat now in the oceans, accumulated over the last couple of centuries. The ocean is taking more from the edges than the icecap and glaciers can accumulate at their centre/top. -
Berényi Péter at 10:45 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
#201 Philippe Chantreau at 10:04 AM on 27 May, 2011 The so-called "Surface Stations Project" is a pile of idiotic nonsense I see. Checking the quality of a measurement system is "a pile of idiotic nonsense" along with NOAA directive 10-1302 of course, Requirements and Standards for NWS Climate Observations. Is it some innovative new trend in science? -
KR at 10:42 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
Berényi - Then you have clearly misread the information I provided. "...observed diurnal temperature range (DTR) changes are actually much larger than predicted by models" (emphasis added) And you then failed to read the quote about the data: "This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (0.9C) than maximum temperatures (0.6C) over the same period." The DTR has reduced over this period, BP - you've read into it what you wanted, and not encompassed the entire quote. Which means, apparently, that you did not read the paper, either. -
scaddenp at 10:39 AM on 27 May 2011How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
Rosco - see water is the most important greenhouse gas And you think scientists havent done the maths then think again (or read the IPCC report and relevant linked papers). See also Schmidt et al for detailed attribution. -
Rosco at 10:35 AM on 27 May 2011Antarctica is gaining ice
Given that ice requires 334 joules per gram to melt where do you propose that energy is coming from over the land of antarctica ?? Do you propose that it coming from the 390 ppm CO2 with its specific heat of less than 1 joule per gram ? I havent done the maths on this because it seems unbelievable that it has the capacity to cause warming on the scale it is credited with. -
scaddenp at 10:29 AM on 27 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Jonicol - obviously needed to generate known forcing as you point out but trend analysis is also part of time series analysis and its trends that are robust predictions from climate models. Since you havent posted paper yet, I have no real idea on what you are proposing but some comments made me think you might be looking down same line as Postma. I hope not. I would hope your new physics can predict the lapse rate for a given atmospheric composition. -
Berényi Péter at 10:23 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
#200 Albatross at 09:21 AM on 27 May, 2011 Does your silence indicate that you implicitly agree that you fabricated the phrase "but the fast increasing DTR"? Please substantiate your claim or admit that you made it up. Try reading the thread every now and then. It was KR quoting Braganza et al 2004, who said "observed diurnal temperature range (DTR) changes are actually much larger than predicted by models". It's a pity it was fabricated. -
Rosco at 10:20 AM on 27 May 2011How climate skeptics misunderstand past climate change
Carbon Di-oxide Claims - "it was a bum rap - it was the Di-hydrogen oxide wot did it" The tropics are the place where the solar irradiance is strongest - can't argue with that one. The majority of the earth in the tropics is ocean. Approximately 2400 j/gram is required to evaporate good old H20. As vapour it has a specific heat of about 2.1 j/gram - insignificant but still double that of CO2. It evaporates and is carried by convection to the upper atmosphere and to the cooler regions of the earth where it releases this energy. I think we can't argue with this as it rained here not long ago. Consequently water vapour makes up approximately 2 % of the atmosphere. CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere and has a specific heat of less than 1 j/gram at ambient atmospheric temperatures. So, every gram of water vapour rising from most of the surface of the hottest parts of the globe carries with it enormous amounts of energy. Convection in both the atmosphere and the oceans swamp the radiative effects - the earth is simply not hot enough for this to not be true. This is not saying there is no radiative effect from the heated surface of the earth simply that the warm air and ocean currents move much more energy than is radiated at the surface. Doesn't the process of water vapour convection seem a much more powerful way of transferring energy than radiation forcing by a gas which is some 60 to 70 times less abundant and which has a thermal capacity some 2400 times less ? Note, this does not say there is no atmospheric effect keeping the earth warm - I didn't say greenhouse deliberately as that is associated with CO2 as a driver. And none of this implies that the earth is at its potential blackbody temperature but it does imply that there may be a possible exaggeration of the radiation imbalance. Radiation is a relatively poor method of transmitting energy in the atmosphere. -
Berényi Péter at 10:12 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
#199 dana1981 at 09:08 AM on 27 May, 2011 But the presence of a DTR trend from 1950-1980 somehow doesn't mean the warming during that period was caused by GHGs. WTF?? There was in fact no warming between 1950 and 1980. Especially since it requires ignoring all other anthropogenic fingerprints Whenever you do not know what to say, start talking about something else. After all that's the way science is done. Or was it politics? -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:04 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
The so-called "Surface Stations Project" is a pile of idiotic nonsense that is of use only to those defined by Trenberth as "fools and charlatans." It has been proven irrelevant frome early on by the ones interested enough to follow up on it with real data analysis. It is not worth bothering with. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:58 AM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
Please, DNFTT. Damorbel is the one who contradicted himself for the sake of argument on the 2nd law thread, in which he demonstrated, among other things, total confusion on Wien's law. It is not worth engaging, especially since the point he is trying to make here is both ill-defined and irrelevant. -
Chemware at 09:57 AM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
@6 e: Err, no. See Skeptic Argument #4. These guys (with one exception) fall into Doran's "Active Publishers" category, not "Climatologist" and related categories. -
Gareth at 09:36 AM on 27 May 2011The Climate Show Episode 13: James Hansen and The Critical Decade
With my knees, I don't do "spring" any more. Think of it more as a slow tentacular movement that involved planning, and cooperation from the tremendous team at UC. ;-) -
jonicol at 09:29 AM on 27 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
Scaddenp. I am not sure how time series analysis is useful in model validation against paleoclimte since again one could only look for cyclical or repetitive functions to match repeated changes, which is essentially what the Milanovich cycles do so well. I would be interested if you could eleborate a little. Perhaps you could point to the parts of the Postma's article you referred me to which you think I should avoid. Thanks again for your helpful comments and this reference. John -
Albatross at 09:21 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
And BP @196, to fill the vacuity of his argument elects to argue a strawman about equants. Did you miss the bolded text from Zhou et al. (2009) and Zhou et al. (2010). You are making a fool of yourself BP. I remind you again that John Nielsen-Gammon, an author of Fall et al., agrees with Zhou et al. (2010). Unlike you,these guys are experts in this field and do in fact know better. Also, please read my post @192 very carefully, and actually look at the Figs. 2 and 3 in Zhou et al. (2010), better yet read the paper. "No, I do not think that, I am not American." But apparently you do when you mistakenly think that certain data from the US support your preconceived ideas and/or beliefs. Does your silence indicate that you implicitly agree that you fabricated the phrase "but the fast increasing DTR"? Please substantiate your claim or admit that you made it up. -
dana1981 at 09:13 AM on 27 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
jonicol - as long as we're talking about costs, there are a whole lot of externalities not accounted for in the market price of coal power. It's actually an exceptionally expensive energy source - moreso than almost every source of renewable energy. But as long as the electricity bill is low, people tend to ignore those external costs. But if we're just talking jobs, renewable energy tends to beat out fossil fuels on that front too. So taking all costs into consideration, it's both cheaper and positive for employment. -
jonicol at 09:08 AM on 27 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Speaking of costs, I notice people are adding transport and fuel costs to those paid for coal produced power. Surely the cost of power from both government owned and privately owned genrating plants already includes thes components before sending out their bills to consumers. If the cost of building solar and wind power generators and their continuing operation were so competitive, why would we need a carbon tax to make the coal fired producers convert to solar etc? You do need to be care as to how you presentthese arguments I believe. -
dana1981 at 09:08 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
To be honest I don't usually pay a lot of attention to BP's comments (no offense intended - he just tends not to comment on posts I monitor the most). But I saw this comment and it just floored me. The lack of logic is staggering. In BP land, the lack of DTR trend from 1980-Present means the warming wasn't caused by GHGs. But the presence of a DTR trend from 1950-1980 somehow doesn't mean the warming during that period was caused by GHGs. WTF?? Of course as Tom Curtis notes in #195, DTR is influenced by other factors besides just GHGs (not to mention the world being larger than the USA), so concluding that the warming wasn't anthropogenic just because the DTR trend isn't evident during that period is, well, it's not very wise. Especially since it requires ignoring all other anthropogenic fingerprints, not to mention that pesky...what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, physics! Sorry BP, but you really need to think about what you're arguing here. It's patently absurd. -
KR at 08:57 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
Berényi - Straws, grasping at, see here. You, of all people, know that regional data can give contradictory indications to full global data. Yeesh. -
Berényi Péter at 08:29 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
#195 Tom Curtis at 07:56 AM on 27 May, 2011 Even more bizzare, BP seems to think that the continental US is the Earth. If we check the data for Australia, which has a similar area to the continental US, we find a clear reduction in DTR with a trend of -0.05 degrees C per decade. No, I do not think that, I am not American. But as far as I know the SurfaceStations project is not a global one yet, specifically it is not extended to the surface stations of Australia. Therefore you can not tell us how much of the Australian trend is due to poor siting and how much of it is genuine. The aerosol card is also a convenient joker, for global atmospheric aerosol concentrations are not measured properly (and never were). -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:17 AM on 27 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Jay... You also might note that, as best as I can tell, Happer was on the steering committee as a JASON that produced a report on greenhouse gases in 1990. Over 20 years ago. That wouldn't make him an expert then or now.Response:[DB] Fixed text.
-
Berényi Péter at 08:01 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
#192 Albatross at 06:26 AM on 27 May, 2011 What is critical to note is that without including anthro GHGs, the model projections in Zhou et al. (2010) were unable to produce the observed trends and patterns in both mean temperature and DTR What is critical to note is that without including equants, the model projections in Ptolemy (~150) were unable to produce the observed planetary orbits So what? Does that make equants real? Of course if you suppose the model is basically correct, you can prove (using observations) the equant can't be located at the center of the deferent circle (and neither one is colocated with the center of the Earth). Same logic. -
Riccardo at 07:58 AM on 27 May 2011The Stockholm Memorandum
damporbel #5 "Nobel Prizes in science are awarded for outstanding progress in science," Indeed! Progress, not denial. Anyway I was just saying that this memorandum is going to be ignored by skeptics, which your comment apparently confirms. -
Tom Curtis at 07:56 AM on 27 May 2011Temp record is unreliable
One bizzare aspect of Berényi Péter's campaign to retract the fingerprints article is that it assumes that only one effect can be influencing the climate at any one time. Specifically, increasing GHG concentrations and increasing aerosol load will both decrease the Diurnal Temperature Range, although the former warms the globe while the latter cools it. In contrast decreasing GHG concentrations and decreasing aerosol load will increase DTR, although the former cools the globe and the later warms it. As it happens, over the continental US, from the 1950s to 1980, both GHG concentrations and aerosol load were increasing, generating a significant reduction in DTR, but since the early 1980's, GHG concentrations have been increasing but aerosol load has been decreasing. Absent the effect of GHG, we would expect an increase in DTR over that period. That we do not see it is therefore evidence of GHG warming (although not the strongest evidence). Even more bizzare, BP seems to think that the continental US is the Earth. If we check the data for Australia, which has a similar area to the continental US, we find a clear reduction in DTR with a trend of -0.05 degrees C per decade. The annual fluctuations are, of course, very large, and dominated by variations in humidity.
Australia is also not the Earth, but the clear difference shows it is foolish to draw a conclusion about global trends from a study of 1.8% of the world's surface area.
Prev 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 Next
