Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 Next
Comments 85501 to 85550:
-
Charlie A at 14:06 PM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
2003 is the first year that we had truly global coverage of ocean heat content measurement. The Argo network was started in early 2000's and expanded dramatically in 2003. If you look at the ocean heat content plots, you will see a very large discontinuity as the main measurement method changed over from XBTs to Argo floats. The recent adjustment of data reduced this non-physical step change, but it is still quite evident.Response:[DB] Tamino shows clearly the nature of the "Cherry-pick" that is 2003:
Looking at the totality of the data:
Smoothed (5-year averages), one gets this:
-
Albatross at 13:57 PM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
All, Bud seems to be cherry-picking papers from the NIPCC's "Prudent Path" misinformation document. If so, he can keep at this for some time.... Also, in the face of evidence to the contrary of his beliefs the "skeptics" just keeps forging ahead, mostly ignoring the inconvenient evidence. At this point one has to wonder whether the person is a "skeptics" or someone in denial about AGW. There are more Hockey Sticks out there than can be used by a NHL team, some generated using independent data not used in the original HS graph. e @85, good catch!Response:[dana1981] I suggest we follow Daniel's sage advice. DNFTT. Until Bud can address the fact that the lone hemispheric reconstruction he has referenced is flawed and outdated, there's little point in feeding him further.
-
angusmac at 13:57 PM on 17 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s
Dana, to summarise our discussuion, I enclose the timeline and narrative showing the reduction in the estimate for the 2019 temperature anomaly from Hansen's initial estimate of 1.57°C in 1988 to your estimate of 0.69°C in 2011.
Links: Hansen (1988a), Hansen (1988b), Hansen (2005), Hansen (2006), Schmidt (2007) & Dana (2011)
-
Bern at 13:42 PM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
Charlie A: why pick 2003 as the start date for your comparison? Is it because 2003 was an abnormally high data point for OHC, perhaps? Suggest you look at the link in my post #7. And the manuscript that goes along with the chart of OHC, on the NOAA page you linked? It says this: "Here we update these estimates for the upper 700 m of the world ocean (OHC700) with additional historical and modern data [Levitus et al., 2005b; Boyer et al., 2006] including Argo profiling float data that have been corrected for systematic errors." Note: the upper 700m of the world ocean - that's the top 20% or so. There's another 2,500 metres of water below that, and recent work suggests there's a lot more deep mixing going on that previously thought. Actually, a quick search reveals this nice SkS article about the energy balance problem. You should read that, and comment there, as this is getting seriously off-topic. -
Charlie A at 13:42 PM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
Just to clarify something in the above post .... The numbers 0.7 x 10^22 joules expected versus 0.08 x 10^22 joules observed are the annual increases in OHC. (These are sometimes expressed in zetajoules or 10^21 joules as 7 zetajoules/year expected vs. 0.08 zetajoules/year observed.) As these are the annual changes, the zero points and the intercepts are not relevant. The change in the earth's heat content each year is a direct measure of the average radiative imbalance over that year. All the different ways of adjusting intercept points are not relevant to the annual radiative imbalance. If you prefer to use units related back to the watts/meter-squared forcings, the conversion is 1 x 10^22 joules/year (or 10 zetajoules/year) of heat content increase results from a forcing of 0.62 watts/meter-squared over the entire globe. -
Charlie A at 13:12 PM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
There is a radiative imbalance between the total energy going into the earth system vs. the total energy leaving the earth system. The forcing from CO2 and various other things end up with a net incoming radiation (mostly shortwave) that is greater than the outgoing radiation (mostly longwave). That results in an increase in the heat content of the earth. About 95% of that increase in the earth's heat content appears in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. We have had fairly accurate measurement of this ocean heat content (OHC) since 2003 with the widespread deployment of the ARGO network. The expected radiative imbalance is around 0.7 * 10^22 joules. (See the SLOPE of the extrapolated line in comment 5, above). The observed rise in OHC since 2003 is about 0.08 * 10^22 joules. That is the missing energy that Trenberth referred to. OHC is a useful metric in that a snapshot of the delta of the OHC over a 3 month or annual period shows the net radiative imbalance of the earth over that period. No further adjustments needed. NOAA OHC page: -
Daniel Bailey at 12:28 PM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
To piggyback on the prevailing sentiment, regionalized warming/cooling is that: regional. For your examples given, the warming experienced regionally during the MWP was just that: regional periods of warming interspersed with bouts of regional cooling. So for every "dog" study showing a certain region was "warm at a certain time period therein, another "pony" study showing cooling during the period can be rolled out. As an example, Martín-Chivelet et al 2011, showed that the 20th century was the time with highest surface temperatures in Northern Spain in the last 4000 years (more robust discussion here), which includes the MWP. Whoopee. But where the warming/cooling of the past differs from the warming experienced in the last century & this is two-fold: 1. This warming is truly global 2. It is driven largely (especially since 1975 or so) by us with our GHG emissions. Please take the time to read the literally hundreds of posts at this site going over this in exquisite detail. Whichever sources of information you've been learning from so far have done you a disservice. -
Jerry at 12:15 PM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Not a Bud comment. In response to scientific certainty you say That humans are very likely (>90%) responsible for most of the temperature rise post-1970 due to fossil-fuel GHG emissions (primarily CO2). I recognize the need for scientific accuracy, but shouldn't it really be >99%, or even >99.99%? Someone could easily take >90% to mean there is a 1 in 10 chance--not horrible odds--when the reality seems more like 1 in a million. JerryResponse:[DB] You speak to the issue of scientific reticence (the over-arching need to "be right") vs colloquially-used language in the real world. In my response earlier, I phrased the expressions of certainty as used by both the National Academies of Sciences and the IPCC.
In the terms you reference, in the common tongue, you may well be correct. After all, unless the physics of human-produced GHGs differ entirely from those of GHG of natural origin (in worlds populated with Iris effects, cloud-causing ENSO and low-flying bacon), what other surmise can be drawn?
In order to effectively communicate with the outside world, scientists must learn to speak comfortably in the common tongue. As things now stand, scientists may as well be speaking in the high tongue of the Noldor.
-
Bern at 11:22 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
Marcus: yes, hypocrisy and politicians seem to often go hand-in-hand. However, I think that we should be careful not to tar all politicians with the same brush, when many are acting without a full appreciation of the situation. Hopefully, though, John's book, and publications like this NAS report, will open the eyes of the more honest amongst the political ranks, who still endeavour to do what they think is best for their electorate. All it takes are a few prominent 'conversions' to the science, and some media coverage, for the average joe sixpack to think "hey, there might be something in this global warming thing after all...". As an example - I was talking to my mother recently, and she was surprised to hear that there was some substance to global warming - she thought it was just another non-issue the politicians were getting upset about. So there is a lot of ignorance (in the 'lack of knowledge & understanding' sense of the word) amongst the electorate. That's what we need to work to correct. I gave a presentation at my work a few weeks ago on global warming, and the response was along the lines of "Wow, I didn't know that!"... -
Marcus at 11:12 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
@ Bern. Yes, thank you again for exposing the Rank Hypocrisy of Tony Abbott. Unless I lived as a total hermit, there is no way that I can avoid the full impact of a GST in virtually *every* facet of my life. By contrast, my use of public transport & green electricity means that my exposure to a carbon tax will be incredibly minimal-& can be reduced further still via some very sensible actions on my part. Its also interesting how Abbott is demanding that Gillard seek a mandate for the Carbon Tax, because she failed to announce it before the last election-yet again he was instrumental in putting together Work Choices, a policy which was brought in *without* a mandate from the electorate! His hypocrisy knows no bounds! -
Bern at 10:43 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
"impose massive costs without meaningful benefits." Australian readers might be more familiar with this in phrased in slightly different language: "It's a great big new tax on everything!" Which is particularly ironic, given that "it" (being a carbon price) only taxes carbon emissions, and that the promulgator of the above soundbite was instrumental in imposing the only "great big new tax on everything" (i.e. the GST) that Australia has seen for the last few decades... -
sailrick at 10:24 AM on 17 May 2011Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
On the California coast, La Nina brought us a wet winter and huge snowpack in the Sierra mountains this year. Not a typical La Nina year here, which are usually dryer than normal. Last year, we saw a fairly typical El Nino winter, with plenty of rain, but an unusually cool summer followed. Any ideas as to why? -
Hockey stick is broken
Bud, This is getting ridiculous. You were asked about global warming, so now you produce a paper about warming in China? What's more, the timeframe referenced for the warm period in that paper is substantially different from the time period in your first paper. The Icelandic warming is timed around 1000 A.D., while the Chinese warming is around 200 A.D. These are different warming events localized to different regions Bud. Please show us some truly global evidence and stop spamming this thread with irrelevant and outdated papers. -
Bern at 10:05 AM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
Actually, I think nanjo's comment about OHC not increasing is best explained by this post over at Tamino's blog. In short: AGW denier posts an article at WUWT which cherry picks data to make it seem like OHC predictions are completely wrong, when they're actually pretty good. -
Bud at 10:00 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Dana. This 2002 paper using data from China confirms period AD 200 that is "The peak at about AD 200 represents the warmest stage of the last two millennia, temperature was even higher than during the 20th century." "General characteristics of temperature variation in China during the last two millennia," GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 9, 1324, 10.1029/2001GL014485, 2002 Bao Yang Institute of Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Achim Braeuning Institute for Geography, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany Kathleen R. Johnson Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA Shi Yafeng Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 210008, Nanjing, China http://www.ess.uci.edu/~johnsonlab/files/Download/Yang%20et%20al.,%202002.pdfResponse:[DB] Please slow down the linear posting of studies until you have properly discussed the ones you have already posted. For example, e countered your Huang et al 1997 with Huang et al 2008 which effectively overcomes your position altogether.
-
Hockey stick is broken
Bud >These scientists find that Iceland was warmer. So what? The topic of discussion is global warming. Do you have up to date evidence that the globe was warmer that the present (meaning 2000-2010 not the 90's)? More importantly, why would that even be relevant to your argument? The key question is the physics that underly the warming and what that means for future temperature trends. -
Marcus at 09:54 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Sorry if this is OT but, as a scientist myself (though not a climate scientist), I get *deeply* offended by implications that scientists in the public sector are part of some big "Gravy Train". Trust me, no-one working in the public sector is getting rich, & research grants-be it from the public or private sector-are incredibly hard to come by. Now, with my level of expertise, I could easily move into a big Bio-tech firm & earn a six figure salary-with about half of the headaches, but I *choose* to work in a *public* institution that has a reputation for *good* science. Now, if we want to look at Gravy Trains, we really need look no further than the bevy of most vocal critics of AGW-politicians from regions currently dependent on coal or oil extraction; politicians who get nice kick-backs from lobbyists in the fossil fuel industry; so-called "think-tanks" who also get a hefty amount of money from the fossil fuel industry & Mainstream Media Outlets who are also heavily dependent on advertising revenue from a number of big business entities-including the fossil fuel industry. Anyone want to place bets on which group I'd think are less likely to be influenced by motives of personal gain? As the sayings go-"Que Bono?" (Who Benefits?) and "Follow the Money". -
Bud at 09:46 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Dana. I pretend nothing. These scientists find that Iceland was warmer. "Once again" meant that they are by no means the only scientists to publish of warmer periods. Since you claimed "There are no millenial reconstructions which show the MWP hotter than present" I gave you a reference to the August 1997, Huang, Pollack, and Shen paper in Geophysical Research Letters. Here's another reconstruction. There's a nice graph on this page: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm Bibliography here: http://www.scotese.com/scotesepubs.htmResponse:[DB] Please see e's pre-emptive reply to you at 80 above.
-
Hockey stick is broken
Bud @77, Huang et. al. have an updated paper here, published in 2008. From the abstract (emphasis mine): "We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions ... all referenced to the 1961–1990 mean of the instrumental record. ... The reconstructions show the temperatures of ... the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level ... and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level. Note that they found that end-of-20th century temperatures were warmer than the MWP, and keep in mind that the 21st century is known to be warmer still. Also note the discussion of their previous paper: "Below we describe their respective datasets, and show why the results of HPS97 cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th century." So Bud, you readily cited the work of these particular scientists when you felt their conclusions agreed with yours. Are you going to stick with them now that their conclusions differ? Are you actually willing to change your point of view given new evidence, or are you just going to cherry pick the versions that you agree with? -
JMurphy at 09:23 AM on 17 May 2011It's the sun
Cole, your linked paper starts : The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for natural forcing of past climate change on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. And ends : We note that our conclusions can not be tested on the basis of the last 30 years of solar observations because, according to the proxy data, the Sun was in a maximum plato state in its longterm evolution. All recently published reconstructions agree well during the satellite observational period and diverge only in the past. This implies that observational data do not allow to select and favor one of the proposed reconstructions. Therefore, until new evidence become available we are in a situation that different approaches and hypothesis yield different solar forcing values. Our result allows the climate community to evaluate the full range of present uncertainty in solar forcing. Can you explain in your own words (i.e. not from WUWT) what you get from that paper ? -
dana1981 at 09:17 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Bud #79 - and I quote:"Once again we have a science paper indicating warmth of the more distant past clearly exceeded that of the recent past....I did NOT say Ran, L., Jiang, H., Knudsen, K.L. and Eiriksson was global."
Stop playing games. If you want to argue that the the North Icelandic Shelf was hotter during the MWP than now, then say so. Don't pretend we're misrepresenting you when you talk about "warmth" in a hockey stick (northern hemisphere) temperature discussion. -
dana1981 at 09:12 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Bud - the study you reference excluded data from the 20th century, aside from other problems. See the Notes section here.Response:[DB] Dana, I'm not sure the Notes sections are viewable to the public. If that is the case, the gist is this:
Summary and Conclusions [25]
The 20,000 year reconstructions presented in HPS97 utilized observations contained in a database of terrestrial heat flux measurements.
Data from the depth range 0– 100 meters, the depth range where most of the information about 20th century climate change resides, were excluded from the reconstruction because of noise considerations.
Thus the reconstructions derived from that dataset cannot be used to compare the Medieval Warm Period to changes taking place in the 20th century.
-
Bud at 09:06 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Sorry, I did NOT say Ran, L., Jiang, H., Knudsen, K.L. and Eiriksson was global. No cherry picking by me. Knee jerk reactions by some of you though. -
dana1981 at 09:02 AM on 17 May 2011It's the sun
I'll probably do a post on this paper. To be fair, if the reconstruction is correct (which I don't think is plausible), it does suggest a very low climate sensitivity, so you could argue that climate models are wrong in that sense. Sensitivity would have to be in Spencer/Lindzen territory, below 1°C for 2xCO2 if this reconstruction is right. I don't think it's plausible, but should make for an interesting post. -
Bud at 08:57 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
@dana: In August 1997, Huang, Pollack, and Shen. Geophysical Research Letters. Using the borehole data, they reconstructed the temperature in the last 20,000 years. Their results are three curves based on different degrees of variation. Shown are a warm holocene climate optimum, a warm and pleasant period around 8,000 years ago that lasted for about 3 millenia, a cool period 2000 years ago followed by the medieval warm period 800 years ago which was also warmer than the present. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/97GL01846.pdf I will respond at length on physics elsewhere, so that perhaps I won't be deleted by the monitor of this blog.Response:[DB] Comments that are on-topic and formulated to comply with the Comments Policy receive no moderation. This, as always, applies to all participants here.
-
Stephen Baines at 08:47 AM on 17 May 2011It's the sun
Cole, Dana's right. I'm not sure you read that paper. In fig 4 there no net change in solar forcing since 1950. And why is the 30 year lag relevant? And what justification for 30 year lag other than " the oceans are vast and deep" do you have? -
Stephen Baines at 08:35 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Sigh. I wonder if they read these things before they post. -
Albatross at 08:24 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Sorry, I of course meant to say "GISP2", not "GIPS2" -
Albatross at 08:10 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Dana, "For this paper, the North Icelandic Shelf does not represent the entire hemisphere or globe." Exactly--"skeptics" cherry picking again. They seem to never learn from their mistakes--i.e., the misrepresentation of the GIPS2 data. Also a recent paper by Thibodeau et al. (2010) shows that: "We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years. " Just saying.... -
dana1981 at 07:58 AM on 17 May 2011It's the sun
Cole -"This paper shows the Models underestimate solar forcing by up to six times."
It does no such thing. The paper suggests that other TSI reconstructions underestimate the amplitude of TSI changes in the past. It has very little to do with climate models, and in fact specifically notes that their TSI estimates over recent decades, during which we have good measurements, are no different than previous TSI reconstructions. -
dana1981 at 07:54 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Bud - what do you mean "once again"? There are no millenial reconstructions which show the MWP hotter than present. For this paper, the North Icelandic Shelf does not represent the entire hemisphere or globe. And the study concludes the sea surface on the North Icelandic shelf "was not as warm during the last century as during the Medieval Warm Period." It's not the last century anymore. And finally, the anthropogenic global waming theory is based on physics, not on being "unprecedented". The fact that the planet warmed naturally in the past doesn't change the physics that humans are causing warming now. -
pbjamm at 07:51 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Bud@everywhere See here and here. You are exploring well charted ground without consulting the maps or the natives. -
Bud at 07:45 AM on 17 May 2011Hockey stick is broken
Once again we have a science paper indicating warmth of the more distant past clearly exceeded that of the recent past, with the peak temperature of the MWP exceeding that of the current period by about 0.6°C, or about the same temperature increase that is expected by a doubling of CO2 concentration. This indicates there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the earth's current level of warmth in this particular part of the planet. Ran, L., Jiang, H., Knudsen, K.L. and Eiriksson, J. 2011. Diatom-based reconstruction of palaeoceanographic changes on the North Icelandic shelf during the last millennium. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 302: 109-119. -
Cole at 07:35 AM on 17 May 2011It's the sun
This paper shows the Models underestimate solar forcing by up to six times. http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2011/05/aa16173-10/aa16173-10.html It makes perfect sense for us to take time to cool the oceans are vast and deep so 30 years of lag time are more than exeptable. -
Stephen Baines at 07:17 AM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
Reading between the lines a bit, but I think nanjo seems to be arguing that CO2 won't increase according to the projections because the ocean is cooling. This argument could be (not certain, though) a variation on the Co2 is coming from the ocean meme. That is, the post industrial increase in CO2 is not from humans but from the ocean which is warming for other inscrutable reasons. Wow. Talk about a house of cards. -
dana1981 at 06:48 AM on 17 May 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Cole, you seem to believe "if I read it on the interwebs and want it to be true, then it must be true." -
dana1981 at 06:44 AM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
nanjo - wow, I don't even know where to begin. I guess a good place is to point out that it's "Mauna Loa", not "Lao". By "assumes" I believe you mean "theorizes". Regardless, the figure you're referencing does not depend on temperature changes. Your claim about OHC diverging from the models, aside from being off-topic, is also wrong.
"when you write articles like this, it makes the sceptics laugh."
"The sceptics" should probably do a little research before laughing at others. That way they wouldn't look so foolish. -
DSL at 06:44 AM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
najo: huh? Why are those four points necessary pretext for a graph showing forecasts of CO2 concentration? And where have you been watching OHC? -
Cole at 06:42 AM on 17 May 2011Newcomers, Start Here
Hey there. I do not believe that CO2 drives climate and I have many good reasons such as.... Paleoclimatology, http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html The IPCC underestimates Solar forcing by up to six times... http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2011/05/aa16173-10/aa16173-10.html Doctoring of Data to show alarmist results (straight from Forbes if you've got a problem with it you are more than welcome to attempt to sue them) http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/05/11/nasa-funded-group-doctors-sea-level-data/ Vs. Real world Data http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1 AGW is based on increasing downwelling radiation, while over the 14 years of this study, CO2 increased 5% but Downwelling radiation decreased... http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1 Predictions repeatedly fail http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/envirorefugees.htm The top Japanese experts thing AGW is no better than Astrology... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ James Hansen just put out a paper admitting that climate models greatly exaggerate man made global warming... http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/8992-james-hansen-admits-man-made-global-warming-has-been-greatly-exaggerated-by-climate-models And Solar scientists don't believe in AGW...In fact it seems mostly only Climate scientists do... http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/its-the-sun-stupid/ So there you have it, I think we've been paying too much attention to the cries of an infant science while mature ones tell us to hold off...Response:[DB] Quite frankly, your comment betrays a lack of knowledge of the science of climate change, which is well-discussed here at Skeptical Science on many hundreds thousands of threads.
Please use the Search function to find individual threads for each of your points, such as CO2 Is Not The Only Driver Of Climate. As constructed, your comment is essentially a Gish Gallop thus needing no refutation.
If anyone wants to respond to one of Cole's points, please do so on a more appropriate thread with a pointer here. Thanks!
-
DSL at 06:33 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Wouldn't work, KR--there's that whole sand thing protecting the Congressional noggins. -
nanjo at 06:22 AM on 17 May 2011Is the CRU the 'principal source' of climate change projections?
when you are showing that forecasts for measured CO2 at the Mauna Lau site, you should point out 1: the CO2 model assumes that increasing CO2 causes the increase in temp ( the basic AGW model ) 2: increase in atmospheric temps will be as the IPCC models state 3: ocean outgassing is affected by the atmospheric temps and OHC 4: Ocrean OHC is assumed to be as IPCC models state I have been watching OHC. It is diverging from the model forecast, pretty badly. Nothing we assumed in AR4 is coming true in that front. Kevin Ternbirth might one day say, "It is a travesty we cannot explain that" and the effect of atmospheric temp on outgassing will be minimal. Most probably that part of the models has to be revisited, in near future when you write articles like this, it makes the sceptics laugh. -
KR at 06:19 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
pbjamm - "John, congratulations on the book. Can you make a special US Congress Edition? " Agreed, John. And can you deliver it by (ahem) dropping each copy onto their heads from a great height? -
pbjamm at 06:12 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud is repeating himself. This is the same discussion that took place on the Infographic thread. At least it was somewhat on topic there. John, congratulations on the book. Can you make a special US Congress Edition? -
Rob Painting at 06:11 AM on 17 May 2011Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
Albatross - thanks, but I don't have time to correct every misguided "skeptic" notion. The following installments will rectify that. Stephen Leahy - thanks once again. A paper published two weeks ago indicates (based on paleodata) that ENSO will only intensify as the tropical Pacific warms. -
Riccardo at 05:26 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
I'm glad that one of the most reputable scientific organization tackled the problem of managing the risk. This is at the very heart of the problem we are facing. And, like it or not, the National Academy of Sciences is "Where the Nation turns for Independent, Expert Advice". -
Stephen Baines at 05:22 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Moderator...didn't realize consensus was off topic here. My apologies. Bud...a vigorous discussion of consensus is here. I have reposted my question there. there.Moderator Response: [e] The note was directed more towards the "ice age predicted in 70s" line of argument, though consensus in general has also been discussed at length in other threads. -
Stephen Baines at 05:20 AM on 17 May 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
This is a repost of a response to Bud in another thread. Bud said "I have following this subject since 1980 when many of these same people were alarmed about global cooling." I remember 1980 Bud. Your timeline is wrong. I was only an undergraduate at the time, but the NAS Charney Report on global warming came out the year before in 1979. We discussed it in class. At that point there was already a consensus on the action of GHG on climate among climate modelers - and that consensus, based on the known physics at the time, suggested warming not cooling. There were still a lot of scientists who remained unconvinced at that point and into the 90s. They have been gradually convinced over the ensuing three decades by the accumulating evidence until virtually all of them now agree. Those people have not arrived at their opinions by appealing to authority, but by evaluating evidence. Look...What if you took your car to 100 mechanics, and 97 of them said you needed to replace your radiator to prevent an engine failure while providing good reasons for their position. One disagreed without giving you a good reason, claiming simply that the others don't know what they are talking about and are not completely sure. Who would you listen to? -
les at 05:09 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
3. the fritz - Must be said, "consensus among economists" doesn't really seem plausible, what ever the target.Give me a one-handed economist! All my economists say, "On the one hand on the other"
Harry S Truman http://www.economist.com/node/2208841?story_id=2208841 -
Albatross at 05:07 AM on 17 May 2011Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
Mr. Solomon seems to have missed this Ecology Letters paper's findings (Feeley et al. 2007): "The impacts of global change on tropical forests remain poorly understood. We examined changes in tree growth rates over the past two decades for all species occurring in large (50-ha) forest dynamics plots in Panama and Malaysia. Stem growth rates declined significantly at both forests regardless of initial size or organizational level (species, community or stand). Decreasing growth rates were widespread, occurring in 24–71% of species at Barro Colorado Island, Panama (BCI) and in 58–95% of species at Pasoh, Malaysia (depending on the sizes of stems included). Changes in growth were not consistently associated with initial growth rate, adult stature, or wood density. Changes in growth were significantly associated with regional climate changes: at both sites growth was negatively correlated with annual mean daily minimum temperatures, and at BCI growth was positively correlated with annual precipitation and number of rainfree days (a measure of relative insolation). While the underlying cause(s) of decelerating growth is still unresolved, these patterns strongly contradict the hypothesized pantropical increase in tree growth rates caused by carbon fertilization. Decelerating tree growth will have important economic and environmental implications." -
JMurphy at 05:07 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud, I seriously urge you to look up the word 'refute', because you have refuted nothing so far. If you DO intend to refute anything (in the real sense of the word), why not do so on the relevant threads. As well as the other suggestions that have been sent your way (and seemingly ignored) you could have a look at : Ice-age predicted in the 70s Not the 80s, as you have suggested, so perhaps you could provide more information about those 80s 'predictions' - on that thread.
Prev 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 Next
