Recent Comments

Prev  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  1705  1706  Next

Comments 84901 to 84950:

84901. Ken Lambert at 23:00 PM on 24 May 2011
       Shapiro et al. – a New Solar Reconstruction
       CBD #18 #23 You are right about orbital tilt cycles being another 'natural' forcing - however these are on 90,000 - 110,000 year time scales. I was talking about the period since AD1750, which forcings appear in Fig 2.4 of AR4. Going back to AD1750 when fossil fuelled industrialization began - the only radiative forcing is Solar irradiance. A couple of factors need to be held constant - the Earth's albedo and the WV & Ice Albedo feedbacks - but since these are at pre-industrial 'natural' levels and not influenced by human released GHG - the assumption seems reasonable.
84902. Mighty Drunken at 22:47 PM on 24 May 2011
       Humlum is at it again
       I do think that Dr. Humlum et al may be correct on the problems of assigning a quantitative value for the probability of AGW. I think this is more a problem for the science of complex systems, not a massive flaw in "AGW theory". Some things are just too complex for us to assign definite values for. What really irks me in the opinion piece is this part; "The CO2-hypothesis as it is formulated right now does not even fulfills the requirements of science, so we are miles away from being able to calculate a meaningful certainty on it. The reason for its lack of scientific foundation is the lack of ability for the CO2-hypothesis to come with forecasts that can be checked now or within a couple of years' time." They seem to be trying to redefine science to exclude complex systems which take a long time to change, or are in the distant past. Things like cosmology, evolution and climate science. They take an extreme view of falsifiability which goes much further than Karl Popper's. Reading Popper talk about evolution in regard to falsifiability is quite enlightening, especially as his views change with time becoming more favourable to the idea that Darwin's theory is testable.
84903. Alexandre at 21:40 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       Eli Rabbett had a special post to blame reporters on this. I prefer the message of grypo's post here, at least the way I understood it: the blame game is futile. It's everyone's job to get the truth out. Good science reporters would help, outspoken scientists would help, informed citizens would help too. I wonder what all this would look like as seen from 2050.
84904. Eric the Red at 21:37 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       Rpauli, I think the reason that journalists do not include that line is because most scientists don't. While a change in climate will result in a change in weather patterns, extreme weather events (if indeed there is a rise) will not necessarily result. Also, the phrase once bite twice cautious may apply following the claims that hurricane seasons like 2005 will be the norm in a warming world. Five seasons later made those people look foolish, so that scientist are refraining from making such claims (without a scientist to quote, most journalists will back off). The current La Nina has been getting most of the blame (and press) for the recent outburts in the U.S. If adelady is reading, she may relate this to the flooding in Australia. I haven't watched CNN in years due to extreme bias in their reporting, although I am not sure that all the networks do not have biases. http://www.politicolnews.com/cnn-afraid-of-social-media-trust-factors/ If am actually surprised that 45% knew that CO2 trapped heat considering that in one survey 47% could not find India on a map. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/ns/us_news-education/t/young-americans-shaky-geographic-smarts/
84905. Eric the Red at 21:00 PM on 24 May 2011
       UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
       Bob, What do you take me for a fool? We both know that using that survey to support global warming is fruitless and open to ridicule. I have even seen one person (jokingly) state that half of the observed warming was due to urbanization and a recent survey showed that it was supported by 97% of climatologists. No, this was not on Pielke's website. You may use the results of this survey if you like, but be warned, it will seriously diminish your credibility in the ensuing argument. The conclusion in the survey is a huge stretch (to use your word) from the actual results. P.S. I grew up in lower Michigan, and have been called that by many a Uper.
       Response:

       [DB] The results of the survey Bob references still stand, handwaving and personal experiences aside.  Natives of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are referred to as Yoopers.  And Bob referred to your comment, not to you.

84906. neilrieck at 20:25 PM on 24 May 2011
       Video and podcast about confusing the hockey stick with the 'decline'
       Not sure how many people saw this piece in the June 2011 issue of Scientific American. The good folks at Climate Progress will probably be able to host it a bit longer than SciAm (who usually keep "the free reading window" open for only 30 days) http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf
84907. RobH at 18:26 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       US Public understanding: I have heard on Australian Public radio that there is a huge underclass of Americans trapped in poverty - the working poor. At the base of this is the US education system funded by local authorities - poor neighbourhood, poor education. Why are so many Americans religious? Same answer. Consequently with a poor educational system, you cant expect people to understand even the fundamentals of global warming - they probably don't even know what CO2 is. Role of Journalists: Similar problem - In Australia at least, journalists are wall-to-wall humanities graduates. You wouldn't believe the naive bloopers that come out on public and commercial radio from the mouths of out arts graduated journalists - the newspapers are just as bad. But we do have the world's best science program - the ABC Science Show. Sadly, 90% of Australians, probably better educated than the US lot, aren't that interested in science to tune in. Secondly, the (commercial) media makes money from controversy. It is not in their interest to either educate or state the facts - even if they understood the facts.
84908. bartverheggen at 18:03 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       Related: Science communication: Who is responsible (for its failing)?
       Moderator Response: [grypo] Thanks Bart. I recommend this to everyone interested in this subject.
84909. Paul D at 17:46 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       Re. DH@3 Campaigns that suit them? Funny, I thought they were supposed to report news. Oops, nope, they have personal opinions and use their 'power' to project it.
84910. ranyl at 17:42 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       There is no trusted word for the public so no knows who beleive about what as all general information resources give bias representation. Can there even be a trusted nowadays?
84911. Paul D at 17:37 PM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Re: coal and labour requirements. Coal today maybe lower in labour costs, but that is due to over 100 years of technology development and improvements in engineering/science. Modern renewable energy technology is about half that age. Indeed, most of the developments that have made renewable energy practical have occurred in the last 10 to 20 years. Renewable energy has a lot more technology innovations to go and that includes cuts in labour which like coal and any other industry will be a strong driving force for innovation and working practices.
84912. Riccardo at 16:50 PM on 24 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       The Shadow #26 "the scientists who referee climate science papers are strongly pro-CAGW." What surprises so much The Shadow and many other fellow skeptics is what happens when a theory is widely accepted. Should I complain if I find the referees being strongly pro Catastrophic Quantum Mechanics or Catastrophic Evolution or Catastrophic Plate Tectonics? Yes, I know, they should be open to new ideas, but not any new idea. It's upon me to have a good one.
84913. David Horton at 16:30 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       "because the press doesn’t see that as their role" - journalists have some other planet to go to? This one's fate of no concern of their's? Anyway, it is nonsense, they will run campaigns on anything that suits them. Climate change doesn't.
84914. Bern at 16:23 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       grypo: thanks for an interesting article. It does help put into context the sometimes frustrating lack of "news" in the mainstream media about climate change. rpauli: that anecdote suggests that 'news' organisations in the US have stopped undertaking journalism, and are well and truly 'owned' by their advertisers. To hear that even an organisation such as CNN was cowed by the fossil fuel interests is depressing. I wonder what the response would have been if the management at CNN had been less focussed on short-term profits, and had stood up for journalistic integrity?
84915. barry1487 at 16:02 PM on 24 May 2011
       Humlum is at it again
       dhogaza, I have to agree that your comments are nitpicking. 'AGW theory' is vernacular, but it neatly encapsulates the larger issue - that human activity is causing the planet to warm. This is the central pillar of these here debates, and responding to criticisms about this issue is the basis of this website. I also agree that it's not a precisely accurate acronym for the scientific basis. I (lightly) propose that, like common vilifying terms that have been appropriated by those maligned by them (nigger, quuer), common usage of this acronym might render it less effective as a pejorative. As to the skeptics - there's no hope for the vast majority, and it's not worth tapping a few more keys to try and win them over with a different nomenclature. That siad, I don't use the phrase much myself - but then I'm usually arguing these days with skeptics on finer points rather than the overall theory. I previously used the term more often when I used to think a holistic debating approach was more effective.
84916. barry1487 at 15:33 PM on 24 May 2011
       Humlum is at it again
       "A theory is more vague than a hypothesis" 'Vague' doesn't come into it. A hypothesis is advanced, and, if it has a close fit to observations, survives scrutiny over time, provides reasonable predictions that are observed, and is corroborated by other scientists looking at the matter in different ways, it advances to a formal recognition of its potential validity - it becomes a theory. As in: chaos theory, gravity theory, the theory of relativity, evolution theory, etc etc etc.
84917. r.pauli at 15:25 PM on 24 May 2011
       Hooks, Roles, and the Climate Change Blame Game
       Journalist Ross Gelbspan writes: "Given the dramatic increase of extreme weather events – you would think that journalists, in covering these stories, would include the line: "Scientists associate this pattern of violent weather with global warming." They don’t." "A few years ago I asked a top editor at CNN why, given the increasing proportion of news budgets dedicated to extreme weather, they did not make this connection. He told me, "We did. Once." But it triggered a barrage of complaints from oil companies and automakers who threatened to withdraw all their ads from CNN if the network continued to connect weather extremes to global warming. Basically the industry intimidated CNN into dropping the one connection to which the average viewer could most easily relate." http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=7743&method=full
84918. mike williams at 15:16 PM on 24 May 2011
       How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
       scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 24 May, 2011 Thanks for that, was that where Sherwood combined radiosonde data and added it to wind shear.? What other fields is wind shear used for measuring temperature.? Tom Curtis at 13:51 PM on 24 May, 2011 In fact, it is directly caused by an increase of specific humidity. Thanks Tom. Wouldn`t that be directy linked to water vapour levels which appear to be dropping. http://www.cira.colostate.edu/cira/Climate/NVAP/satconf_2003_tv_poster.jpg Tom Curtis at 14:07 PM on 24 May, 2011 mike williams @34, as an addendum to my comment, I would like to refer you to Chris Colose's comments @11 and 15 above. Thanks Tom..without being obtuse..most of it went over my head. :) Mike
84919. jonicol at 14:49 PM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       1. Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 24 May, 2011 jonicol @40, I found my first encounter with your theories several years ago...... . He is so incompetent that his colleague, you, is still refuting a back radiation .......... without having realized after three years ...... is not the theory of the greenhouse used by climate scientists. 1. Thank you Tom for coming back on this. I realised after reading a number of physics and spectroscopy papers on the action of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in particular after carrying out my own basic quantum mechanical analysis, that mine was not the “physics” used by climatologists. I then spent the next three years asking the Australian climatologists, what is the theory of the green house used by them. None has been able to give me an answer beyond stating that there was a correlation between 1979 and 1998 and virtually that was it. If you have more details, I would be delighted to hear from you. You have my email address at bigpond from my paper so I will look forward to hearing from you with genuine interest. Kinninmonth demonstrably makes fundamental errors on a repeated basis, wether by design or through incompetence. 2. Could you give some examples of his errors? Your listing of Bill Kinninmonths qualifications are a pure appeal to authority....... 3. I was not intending to go through the background qualifications of anyone, since I believe that most scientists learn on the job. However, some one else mentioned Bill as being one of my colleagues and indicated that he, Bill was not qualified to make a contribution to climate discussions. It seemed appropriate to at least outline what I believe does give him very significant credibility in this field, even though he does not claim to be a “climatologist”. So, no, I am not appealing to authority as I did not make any comment on the results of Bill’s work. It would also be interesting to know for instance, whether Andy Pitman or Will Steffen for instance, are conversant with the required physics and mathematics which is used to set up an AOGCM climate model, the basis upon which the science of climatologists relies. Not that it is any concern if they cannot, but they do refer to themselves as climatologists. Nor am I not saying either that Hansen is insufficiently knowledgable even though I do not agree with his analysis of the behaviour of CO2 since he also uses assumptions based only on Arrhenius’ hypothesis with a bit of embellishment from Callendar, whose work is interesting, but I am sure would agree simplistic. As I included in a longer response in this thread, the main portion of which was snipped, the most significant error from the point if view of physics that Arrhenius and Callendar made, as perpetuated also in modern climatology, is that only the green house gases are responsible for the rise in temperature from 255 K to 288 K. While at low concentrations the green house gases will assist in warming the atmosphere, the major transfer of heat from the surface to air is via wind cooling over land and evaporation over water. The sea surface for instance in the tropics has not been known to rise to 100 C (373K) which would be required for it to radiate at the rate it receives heat from the sun. Similarly over land the surface exposed to the midday tropical sun does not reach more than about 60 C whwereas the radiation equilibrium temperature is 119 C. On the basis of these observations, it is not difficult to calculate the fraction of heat lost by radiation - < 20%, - and nothing will change that. Perhaps you could give me some references to the work by Rabbet, Colose and Tamino since in my limited knowledge of them they have seemed to be working more on the veracity or otherwise of temperature measurements and concentrations of carbon dioxide, rather than discussing the physical links between the two parameters. Nor, apparently, for all of Kinninmonths qualifications ...... radiative transfer is unphysical 4. I am wondering if you could be more specific in explaining why my model of the atmosphere is “unphysical”. I have had many comments on my paper over the years it has been on the web but none which described it as “non physical” As you would be aware, I have always given my email address and invited comments and in particular criticisms of the physics – but disappointingly none has been critical and many physicists have commended it – not that I am seeking commendation as it is just pure text book physics applied to the atmosphere and carbon dioxide in particular as an example of a green house gas. You say you want to "draw attention for the need to discuss the scientific aspacts of climate change". Nothing done by the moderators or participants in this forum have prevented you from doing so. 5. That isn’t quite correct as some years ago I added my two pennies worth as I did the other day and was pillaried for it. I wasn’t discouraged this time – just had the main part of my contribution removed from the site. I accept that it may have just now gone outside this particular thread but somewhere else on this I have been urged to stick to the science. You have just been required, like the rest of us, to post on topic discussions which are confined to the topic of the post being discussed. As all manner of climate science (and non-science by deniers) is discussed on this forum, finding a suitable topic should be no problem. Apparently, however, it is too much effort for you. You would rather hijack threads with long screeds devoted solely to your theories. However, this is not your site. Out of politeness to your host, you should obey the forum rules (see the comments policy). Your inability or unwillingness to do so is you only impediment
84920. Enginerd at 14:48 PM on 24 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Prof. Mandia: Thank you for sharing this post. And, more importantly, I commend Angela, Ryan, Nick, and Jason for sharing their papers. They all did excellent work, and I hope they continue to take a very critical look at skeptic arguments and formulate (and defend) their own opinions on the science.
84921. mcrainbird at 14:45 PM on 24 May 2011
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       This looks like a fantastic resource for my Geography students - we have ordered our copy. At last something to counter all the BS in the media. Cheers.
84922. Albatross at 14:18 PM on 24 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Dana @27 and Barry @28, That is exactly what I was trying to communicate @24. Although I guess that I was not direct/clear enough.
84923. Tom Curtis at 14:07 PM on 24 May 2011
       How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
       mike williams @34, as an addendum to my comment, I would like to refer you to Chris Colose's comments @11 and 15 above.
84924. Tom Curtis at 13:51 PM on 24 May 2011
       How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
       mike williams @34, the sentence you quote is poorly phrased. As the current warming is predominantly due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, any tropospheric hotspot observed will also be due to that enhanced greenhouse effect. What is true is that the tropospheric hotspot is not uniquely caused by the greenhouse effect. In fact, it is directly caused by an increase of specific humidity. That increased humidity increases the efficiency of energy transport to the tropopause, with a resulting reduction in the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature falls with increasing altitude). If the increase in specific humidity where to extend to the tropopause, the reduced lapse rate would mean the high troposphere would have warmed more than the surface. IMO, the jury is still out on whether specific humidity above 5 km altitude has increased, and also on whether the hot spot exists. As the decreased lapse rate with increased humidity is a negative feedback, its absence is hardly cause for comfort to deniers. Anyway, as the hotspot is a consequence of the increased humidity, any mechanism that warms the atmosphere will generate a hotspot. Indeed, solar heating which is strongest in tropical regions should generate a more distinct hotspot than does the greenhouse effect (which results in a greater relative warming near the poles).
84925. scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 24 May 2011
       How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
       mike, my understanding is that warming from any forcing would produce the tropospheric hotspot, its not a particular fingerprint of GHG warming. The alleged missing hot spot (not) is an item because of supposed inconsistancy between models and observations. As has been pointed out though, it is detection that is the problem, though there could also be issues in the model detail.
84926. Charlie A at 13:18 PM on 24 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Here is the complete text of my comment #9. ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] A link will do.  Interested parties, if any, are more than capable of reading upthread.  Keep in mind the focus of this thread.  You would have been better served, and less misunderstood, if you had simply asked your question(s) on a more relevant thread (that Search function thingy again).

84927. Bob Lacatena at 13:16 PM on 24 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       30, scaddenp, Not to mention the fame. All those minutes spent on speaking tours and talk shows and Fox News. Oh, wait, that's the skeptics. And then there are the huge bucks from the book sales. Oh, wait, skeptics again. And then there are the babes. You know, those loose, buxom science groupies that faint at the sight of a pen protector and horn rimmed glasses. Just say the words "general circulation model" and they melt. There's nothing hotter than a climate scientist (T-shirt possibilities!). Of course, they're few and far between when you are spending most of your time hauling your butt around the Arctic or the Amazon or some other god-forsaken place a gazillion miles from civilization. But if you were near civilization, there'd be climate babes aplenty.
84928. Charlie A at 13:12 PM on 24 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       #30 is the closest to understanding my. I had no interest in the main thrust of this post, but because of some other stuff I'm looking at, the plot of Hansen's forcings and link caught my attention. Look at the comment history. I inquired about the forcings, without making comment on either Spencer's or Bickmore's arguments. What I thought would be my final comment, #9, was a simple observation that I did not find Spencer's calculation of sensitivity of 1.3C/doubling unusual as it was consistent with the the short term response sensitivity of many models. As far as Bickmore being disingenuous about the source of the forcing data, I asked for the source. He answered it. He left the main article ambiguous or misleading as to the source of the forcings, but it is a minor, somewhat tangential matter. One that I have an interest in, but not relevant to his analysis. "It sounds almost like he's saying there was no point in addressing Spencer's claims (and thus no point in reading Bickmore's post) because they actually agreed with mainstream climate science." -- that's a reasonable description of my attitude. A more accurate statement is that I am not sufficiently interested by the debate to analyze it in detail. I would fully expect that there are others which have much greater interest is this particular kerfluffle. I was rather surprised that my statements in comment #9 about the short term transient response of the GISS E model would be controversial and that others would claim them to be misrepresentations. I also described in comment #9 the short term (70 year) response of GFDL. That description was also attacked as being a misrepresentation, and two other posters claimed the I either misunderstood or misrepresented Held et al 2010. Hopefully, after this rather lengthy exchange of comments, any reasonably intelligent reader can see that properly described the GISS E short term sensitivity, the short term sensitivity or transient response of GFDL CM2.1, and properly interpreted Held et al 2010.
84929. mike williams at 13:11 PM on 24 May 2011
       How Jo Nova doesn't get the tropospheric hot spot
       Great site you have here, load of reading for me.. Pardon the next question. I am just confused with terminology. This page states "The biggest misunderstanding about the tropospheric hot spot is the mistaken notion that it's caused by the greenhouse effect." I thought the greenhouse effect/greenhouse forcing was was 1/the same thing. 2/At the heart of AGWarming science. If its not, why is the ipcc using the term as well as the australian govt.? Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html Such “fingerprints of greenhouse gas forcing” include, for example, the observation that winters are warming more rapidly than summers and that overnight minimum temperatures have risen more rapidly than daytime maximum temperatures (IPCC 2007a)An apparent inconsistency between observations with greenhouse theory was the alleged failure to find a so-called “tropical hot spot”, a warming in the tropical atmosphere about 10-15 km above the Earth’s surface. In reality, there was no inconsistency between observed and modelled changes in tropical upper tropospheric temperatures, allowing for uncertainties in observations and large internal variability in temperature in the region. Furthermore, recent thermal wind calculations have indeed shown greater warming in the region (Allen and Sherwood 2008), confirming that there is no inconsistency and providing another fingerprint of enhanced greenhouse forcing. http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/05/4108-CC-Science-Update-PRINT-CHANGES.pdf
84930. scaddenp at 12:35 PM on 24 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       Jimjim, sounds like comment policy violation to me, but for your interest, climate scientists get grants to investigate what we do not know about climate with no predetermined result in mind. All that money on climate science is largely spent on satellites. If you want to make money, then take a proposal to Koch or Cato, or Heartland for some anti-theory instead. If you can dream up something plausible, then I'll bet you can get more money personally than you would ever get through research grant channels. PS know any rich climate scientists?
84931. dana1981 at 12:35 PM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       macoles - fair enough, the same thought occurred to me. But I thought it was an example worth mentioning nonetheless.
84932. Tom Curtis at 12:22 PM on 24 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       Yes, JimJim, all those very smart scientists who are so determined to falsely report their results in the full knowledge that any of their colleagues (and any reasonably educated lay person) can show they where falsely reported and blow the whistle, all to secure a job on 50 thousand a year and a life time supply of abusive emails and death threats from global warming deniers. Meanwhile, in other news, JimJim proves that 911 was a CIA conspiracy and that mankind has never walked on the moon ...
84933. Stephen Baines at 12:20 PM on 24 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       JimJim You can make just as much or more money saying its not real. If money were the real issue there would be no consensus.
84934. JimJim at 12:10 PM on 24 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       E So in your world you think there is no bias with climate sciences that live off grant money saying that 97% of them think it's real?
       Response:

       [DB] Next ye'll be sayin' that climate scientists hate Christmas...

84935. adelady at 12:05 PM on 24 May 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Sphaerica - I see what you mean about the snow, esp across Russia. No wonder the fires have started a few weeks early.
84936. macoles at 11:07 AM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Re my point about Navarre above. An better comparison would be against another state within Spain that has attracted a similar investment per capita ratio Finding an EU country to compare apples with apples is just too difficult.
84937. macoles at 10:55 AM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Quick nitpick: The section "Falling Unemployment in Navarre" doesn't really support your thesis. That the employment in Navarre has outperformed the rest of Spain has more to do with the greater level of investment sent there (at the expense of other places in Spain?) rather than the type of investment. If the green investment was more homogeneous throughout Spain and nationwide employment performed better than a comparable country, then that would be a better supporting argument. Otherwise great work, I'd wondered about the veracity of this often quoted denialist report a while back too.
84938. Andy Skuce at 10:43 AM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Tom C It may well be the case that coal is less labor intensive than renewables but the kind of analysis is fraught with difficult assumptions about what is included in the investments and how the jobs are counted. Economies of scale and maturity of technology are very different between established big industries like coal and emerging industries like PV and wind making any comparison very difficult. And I would prefer not just to rely on one study from an advocacy group like REPP, especially in a report that is nearly 10 years old. My point is, costs aside, that I would be for renewables over coal regardless of which means of production of energy was the more labor intensive.
84939. NewYorkJ at 10:02 AM on 24 May 2011
       Skeptical Science Educates My Students
       Some teachers approach the topic of global warming like it's a debate on a political topic, like it's "abortion rights - pro or con". Students are asked to chose a "side", either "pro" global warming or skeptic, and then conduct debates for or against each position. The end result is those choosing (or being assigned) the "skeptic" side will inevitably gather and present material from denier blogs, with of course little consideration for the scientific validity of the arguments gathered from search engines. Such "debates" are won by who sounds most convincing, not on the evidence presented. I don't think that's the best way to teach science to non-technical audiences. It works when the students have the technical competency to sort through various arguments, as it mostly would in a debate about abortion, where much is a value judgment. If students have minimal background on the hard sciences, such a "debate" on science topics is of limited value. It's not as if the students will end up with real discussions on radiative forcing and climate feedbacks. I don't know of formats for debating whether or not the Earth is flat, or the basics of gravity and Relativity. Why must teachers succumb to the false balance on the topic of climate change that is evident in mainstream media and political spheres? It all goes back to: Teach the Controversy
84940. citizenschallenge at 09:30 AM on 24 May 2011
       Book reviews of Climate Change Denial
       Very worthy book. #3 The Five Types of CC Denial Arguments, #4 History of Denial did a wonderful job of summarizing the situation. For my purposes #5 Do We Let Denial Prosper may have been the most informative. Though I found myself wondering if the majority of American politicians and citizens are capable of the intellectual integrity to actually face down these problems. Rolling Back Denial - The Big Picture will be an eye opener to many. The list of things we can do on p129 was a bit heartbreaking considering that 11 of those 13 items, we should have been actively pursuing since, and as, good ‘ol President Carter was trying to explain to my nation way back in the 1970s. :-( The next chapter Rolling Back Denial - The Technological Solutions, summation of renewable energy was first class. I liked that you remained very skeptical of Nuclear Power - the section on Carbon Capture was an informative introduction for someone like me who hasn’t familiarized himself with those particular issues. I applauded your bravery and hope in the face of this ultimate of challenges humanity has created for itself. May it be read by millions.
84941. Stephen Baines at 09:17 AM on 24 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       I'm also having a hard time understanding CharlieA's point. It sounds almost like he's saying there was no point in addressing Spencer's claims (and thus no point in reading Bickmore's post) because they actually agreed with mainstream climate science. That would be news to Spencer, I imagine. He also seems to lean a lot on this longterm shortterm response distinction.
84942. Tom Curtis at 09:09 AM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Andy S, I believe the relevant quote from the post is

       "Similarly, a 2001 Renewable Energy Policy Project report found that wind and solar photovoltaic investments lead to at least 40% more jobs per dollar than coal."

       It is certainly desirable, though probably not possible, that we should reduce the cost of electricity by switching to green options. All else being equal, however, if costs are identical and green power results in 40% greater employment for a given cost, then green power is preferable on that ground alone.
84943. Andy Skuce at 08:59 AM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
       Allow me to play the contrarian here. I think that the green jobs argument is a distraction and may even be counterproductive. It’s useful for reminding opponents of any investment in renewable energy that green jobs will be created that will offset the loss of black jobs in the coal or oil industries. But we are not trying to reduce CO2 emissions because we want to move employment from one sector to another, or even because we want to stimulate economic growth. This will sound radical to some people here but I would argue that the fewer green jobs are ultimately necessary, the better will be our chances of mitigating climate change. Let me try to explain why. Imagine that we could, through more efficient business practices and better design, reduce the cost of building wind turbines and reduce the frequency of breakdown and required maintenance. This would mean that, per turbine, we could employ fewer workers. Imagine also, that a technological breakthrough allowed us to build wind turbines that were twice as efficient for the same cost. This would mean that for a given number of renewable kilowatts, we could use, perhaps half the labor. Surely, we should welcome, even encourage, such progress, even though it would reduce the number of green jobs created. Our motivation for moving to renewables is not, after all, because we want to grow the economy but because we need to put the brakes on our atmospheric CO2 emissions. Achieving this will have costs. For example, the Stern Review estimates that stabilizing CO2e at 500-550ppm by 2050 will have annual costs of 1% of GDP, “a level that is significant but manageable”. Of course, the benefits we and our descendants will accrue from incurring these costs lie elsewhere and stretch out into the far future. Every job, green or black, ultimately has to be paid for, either by consumers or taxpayers. By arguing that moving to renewable energy will necessarily generate many new net jobs, we are, in effect, conceding that the costs of decarbonizing the economy will be unavoidably high. I recommend Paul Krugman’s long essay on Building a Green Economy ; I agree with almost every word in it. He doesn’t mention green jobs even once
84944. JMurphy at 08:28 AM on 24 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       bbickmore wrote : "Honestly, I'm having trouble following your logic. And to be perfectly frank, you don't seem to have read what I said very carefully before accusing me of misunderstanding Spencer and failing to link to his blog." I believe this is the same comprehension problem that used to be exhibited by a certain poster named Gilles - whom I believe is now called Charlie A.
       Response:

       [DB] "whom I believe is now called Charlie A"

       I do not believe so.

84945. jarch at 08:20 AM on 24 May 2011
       Humlum is at it again
       Marcus, it seems to me again that you don't answer my questions : I said that I don''t know how to evaluate a likelihood that a given theory is true (I know only how to evaluate a confidence interval of numerical parameters using a proven theory), and you didn't offer the slightest clue to answer that - just imprecations. Now if you believe that there is a numerical method to compute this kind of likelihood, nothing prevents to apply it retrospectively to a past stage of knowledge. For instance how would you evaluate the "likelihood that the Earth is the center of the universe" with the knowledge people had in 1400 ? or the "likelihood that the simultaneity of time is independent of the observer " ? I have no idea how to compute that - and the result , if any, would be probably totally wrong.
84946. bbickmore at 08:20 AM on 24 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Dana's right, Charlie. I guess I thought you were agreeing with me at first because this point is so obvious. If Spencer's meant his 1.3 °C figure to be interpreted as transient sensitivity, then why was he comparing it to the IPCC's most probable range for equilibrium sensitivity? I just can't understand how you can think so clearly about how climate models work, and then stop short of admitting that Spencer wasn't.
84947. The Shadow at 08:15 AM on 24 May 2011
       Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial
       It is well known that scientific publications and the scientists who referee climate science papers are strongly pro-CAGW. It is, therefore, not surprising that the number of skeptical publications is small. If the standard for being included in the survey is pulications then it is no surprise that the results are strongly in support of CAGW. The general public seems to understand, rather intuitively, what the the pro-CAGW science community generally denies, that conflicting/confounding data (of which there is substantial) means a theory is flawed. If we were to execute another study which included only those climate scientists that had been in their field for 20+ years, I would imagine the results would look substantially different.
       Response:

       [DB] You should perhaps learn to differentiate between a theory and a hypothesis.  While you're at it, please study this site's Comment Policy.  Most readers here understand rather intuitively that the use of "pro-CAGW" is a major red flag, and tells the reader much indeed about those who freely bandy the term about.

84948. Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 24 May 2011
       Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
       jonicol @40, I found my first encounter with your theories several years ago quite educational. I had to actually learn the true basis of the theory of global warming to understand what was wrong with them. But learn I did, from blogs by Eli Rabbet, Chris Colose, and Tamino, and a book by Pierrehumbert. Do you wish to argue that any of these are inadequately educated in mathematics or science to understand climate? Or that Hansen is insufficiently knowledgable in physics to do so? Or that Archer is insufficiently educated? Your listing of Bill Kinninmonths qualifications are a pure appeal to authority, and nothing more. In this case the appeal is unwarranted because Kinninmonth demonstrably makes fundamental errors on a repeated basis, wether by design or through incompetence. He is so incompetent that his colleague, you, is still refuting a back radiation model of the the green house effect without having realized after three years that that is not the theory of the greenhouse used by climate scientists. Nor, apparently, for all of Kinninmonths qualifications in Eularian theory has he realized that your model of the atmosphere and radiative transfer is unphysical. (Or perhaps he does, and is too focussed on strategy to say.) You say you want to "draw attention for the need to discuss the scientific aspacts of climate change". Nothing done by the moderators or participants in this forum have prevented you from doing so. You have just been required, like the rest of us, to post on topic discussions which are confined to the topic of the post being discussed. As all manner of climate science (and non-science by deniers) is discussed on this forum, finding a suitable topic should be no problem. Apparently, however, it is too much effort for you. You would rather hijack threads with long screeds devoted solely to your theories. However, this is not your site. Out of politeness to your host, you should obey the forum rules (see the comments policy). Your inability or unwillingness to do so is you only impediment to discussion on this forum.
84949. dana1981 at 08:03 AM on 24 May 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Charlie #25:

       "And I originally noted, a finding of transient sensitivity of 1.3C is not sufficiently novel to motivate me to wade through the mess."

       It's also worth noting that Spencer is claiming 1.3°C equilibrium sensitivity.
84950. Alexandre at 07:56 AM on 24 May 2011
       UQ Physics Colloquium this Friday: Communicating Climate Science and Countering Disinformation
       John, any chance of someone recording and posting a video?
       Response: [JC] I'll ask but I'm doubtful. Update: turns out people on campus have asked for the talk to be videoed and they'll be posting it online. So a video of the talk will be available.

Prev  1691  1692  1693  1694  1695  1696  1697  1698  1699  1700  1701  1702  1703  1704  1705  1706  Next