Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 Next
Comments 85651 to 85700:
-
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. -
Stephen Baines at 05:00 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
"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. As has been pointed out in the consensus thread, 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?Moderator Response: [e] When responding to clearly off-topic comments, please place the comment in the appropriate thread then link to it here (or politely point the commenter to the appropriate thread). Thank you. -
Bud at 04:36 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
The moderator's statements are wrong. If statisticians do not have the relevant expertise to weigh in on climate modelling, and obvious misuse of statistical techniques used by climate scientists, then climate science is not a science.Moderator Response: [e]As has been discussed, the paper you cited has been retracted and no longer has bearing on this discussion. If you are concerned about the opinions of statisticians, note that the American Statistical Association endorses the IPCC's conclusions.
In any case, the statistical viability of Mann's research is discussed elsewhere on this site. Please review the existing discussions and take your points to the appropriate thread. Future off-topic posts will be deleted.
-
Paul D at 04:16 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud: "I am also discrediting the use of consensus..." The consensus is based on a vast tranche of data and research. So in reality using the concept of consensus does make sense because it is a written shorthand for that research. -
Paul D at 04:12 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud said: "Most of these climate scientists are dependent on continuing money from governments for the pay checks to study global warming, so most of them are heavily biased to keep the gravy train rolling." But you are quoting from scientists that are also paid for by public money! You are a ( -snip- ) is stating that one set of publicly funded scientists should be ignored and others should be listened to. Effectively you are invalidating the idea that payment from taxes is an issue.Response:[DB] Please attack the argument only.
-
Bud at 04:07 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
DSL, I am a scientist-businessman, and people are spending billions of dollars trying to corrupt the public understanding of science - just on rhetoric and politics - but I don't demonize them. These people are doing great harm to science. I have following this subject since 1980 when many of these same people were alarmed about global cooling. I believe I am more ready to accept new evidence than you are. In any event, I have no ties to academic grants or oil or energy companies (except being a normal energy user). If I have any errors in my posting, then tell me. But posting elsewhere would be better. But keep in mind, unlike many responders here, I am staying on the the point of this thread, i.e. I was giving examples with regard to the ability of non-climate scientists to falsify a climate scientist's hypothesis. I am also discrediting the use of consensus, which is known in science and logic as a fallacious appeals to authority in the general form: Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true. As I said, I am not trying to re-argue the science published by others. If you deny that there have been more ad hominem attacks on AGW skeptics than on proponents, then you are not honest with yourself. Just look at the responses to me in this specific thread.Moderator Response:[e]The comment on global cooling has already been addressed here.
[Edit: I cited the wrong thread here. I intended to direct you to the ice age predicted in the 70s thread.]
The examples you gave were not scientific evidence but opinion statements by persons without the relevant expertise necessary to lend weight to their opinion (discounting retracted research). They have no relevance to this thread.
If you prefer to discuss the scientific evidence rather than general expert consensus, then you are in good company on this site. If you review this site's list of skeptic arguments you will find that this site is predominantly focused on discussing the scientific evidence. You are welcome to find the appropriate thread and take your scientific objections there.
-
Paul D at 04:06 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud: "In science, a consensus or testimony by one of more authorities does not validate an hypothesis." That isn't exactly true. Logically if those 'authorities' have gathered enough evidence, then it validates the hypothesis sufficiently as understood at the time. One can only act on what is known at the time, not on an alternative hypothesis that might be formulated in the future. -
dana1981 at 03:52 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
CBD - yes, this is a very good point. If the "skeptics" were right and a carbon price did begin to cripple the economy, it could simply be scaled back if the public so demanded. I find it very frustrating that there is no intelligent reason not to implement a carbon price, some exceptionally compelling reasons to implement one, and yet we're still not doing it. -
the fritz at 03:50 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
consensus amongst economists with climate expertise -------------------- Waouh! a consensus among economists, all climate experts in addition; that must be a great family -
CBDunkerson at 03:47 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
I like the point in the second bullet about how easy it would be to reverse course if we later found that the 'uncertainties' surrounding climate science caused us to overshoot on avoidance efforts. It nicely counters the nonsense about 'massive costs'. If we were to start implementing significant clean energy policies now it'd still be decades before they were up to a large scale and imposing those 'massive costs'... which means that if Inhofe and the like were correct we'd have plenty of time to observe the growing problem and switch back to fossil fuels... since in their reality we'd also be seeing no further warming over those decades. Might be a way to call them on their BS. Build into global warming legislation that clean energy funding gets pulled if it is costing XX% more than fossil fuel energy or if global temperature anomalies decline from one decade to the next. That would 'protect' us from the problems they claim to foresee so there should then be no reason to oppose the legislation. Of course they would anyway because all their concerns are a smokescreen for propping up the fossil fuel industry, but it'd be easier to make everyone see that. -
chris at 03:31 AM on 17 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Ken Lambert at 00:12 AM on 17 May, 2011 Well Ken, there's a huge set of data that bears on our knowledge of any particular element of the climate system. It's astonishing to me that someone would focus on truly deficient stuff in junk journals to attempt to reinforce a preferred conclusion. It's not "emotive cat-calling" to call dismal analysis, dismal, and atrocious scholarship, atrocious! D/K’s analysis is objectively pretty dismal. I’ve indicated a major problem in my post above. But D/K is additionally a dismal attempt at estimating “Recent Energy Balance of the Earth”. It’s obvious that their energy balance estimation is incorrect. They recognise that vonSchuckmann's analysis is greatly at odds with theirs but can manage only one sentence of "analysis", viz: “Why the von Schuckmann case is an “outlier” is worthy of further study.” That’s simply unacceptable in a scientific paper, if their aim is to provide a sensible estimate of the energy balance. They have to comment on the huge difference. They have to comment on the fact that von Schuckmann’s analysis contains data to the deeper oceans, and they have to comment on the fact that all the evidence for the thermal component of sea level rise indicates that this has remained positive during their study period. Otherwise it's a deeply flawed “show and tell”. It doesn’t add to our knowledge or provide insight into the natural world. It’s almost certainly incorrect. It’s atrocious scholarship. I suspect D/K simply don’t care; neither does the International Journal of Geosciences as judged by their acceptance of this in a 10 day received-“reviewed”-revised-accepted process. We can surmise that Douglass at least doesn’t care very much since he has a habit of doing this. He butchered an analysis of comparison of model and empirical tropical tropospheric temperature (by using a completely inappropriate statistical analysis), he (with Knox) butchered an analysis of climate sensitivity based on the response to the Pinatubo eruption (by using a completely inappropriate single box representation of the climate system)....You seem a little precious in your aversion to robust descriptors ("atrocious", "dismal", "butchered"), but if one wishes to find out about the world around us, we do need to recognise what is rubbish and what isn't - one may as well be robust about this! As for "You are not arguing on the numbers Chris." What's the point of "arguing" Ken? The numbers are there in all of the papers we're discussing. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the earth is in positive radiative imbalance, whatever the uncertainty in the precise numbers over whatever long or short period of time you wish to "dice" up the analysis. I'm comfortable waiting to see how these subjects develop over the next couple of years. You choose to plant your flag with D/K. As I said above, we're clearly not going to agree over this, so why "argue"? Has there been very little ocean heat uptake into the upper 700m of the ocean in recent years? Maybe, maybe not. When we're confident about that we can ask the questions of whether the radiative imbalance has reduced quite a bit for a time or not, and why or why not. You can stick for D/K-style show-and-tell; I'm plumping for the science "in the round"! -
DSL at 03:16 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud @34: no, really, it doesn't. These claims about money are uncritical. Describe, if you would, this "gravy train" and how it differs from the "gravy train" of privately-funded science. In whose interests is publicly-funded science done, and how is integrity maintained? In whose interests is privately-funded science done, and how is integrity maintained? If you were a scientist and someone spent tens of millions of dollars just to try to corrupt the public understanding of your conclusions--just on rhetoric--you would also endlessly demonize that someone. But what I'm waiting for now, Bud, is your recognition that you might have made a few errors in your original postings (on CO2 as a forcing). If you were a true skeptic, you'd consider the evidence and either provide a counterargument or change your understanding of the situation (not here, of course: on the appropriate thread). Can we expect this from you, or will you go the way of so many others and refuse to admit new evidence into your understanding? -
JMurphy at 03:10 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Yes, very ironic about Bud's use of Wegman, but what is even more ironic is that so-called skeptics rely so much on 'criticisms' of Climate science which are themselves (authors and papers) perfect examples of those supposed criticisms. And yet, for some strange reason, the so-called skeptics can't see the irony ! Won't be long before we hear the wailing of "Conspiracy !", "They're all biased against our 'experts' !" and "The truth is being suppressed !!".Response:[DB] You mean like this?
-
Stephen Baines at 02:52 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
The correct link. Feel free to delete if considered OT.Response:[DB] From George Mason University:
University spokesman Dan Walsch says the study retraction was a "personnel matter" and declined to comment.
Note the use of "personnel" instead of "personal".
-
CBDunkerson at 02:52 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud writes: "What I am doing is discrediting your ceaseless and invalid statements about consensus and your repeated statements concluding, more or less, that the work or opinion of a non-climate scientist is irrelevant." And you are doing that by not responding to any of the counter-arguments presented to you or reviewing any of the data and explanations about actual climate science? I think you'll find this strategy less than effective. BTW, the journal which published the Wegman Report recently withdrew it after discovering that it's authors committed academic fraud. -
Albatross at 02:50 AM on 17 May 2011Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
Owl905 @19, Thanks for that link about Solomon claiming the tornadoes in the southern States are a sign of global cooling-- I think it is relevant here, becasue it speaks to his lack of credibility and propeonsity to mangle and distort the facts. Forgetting for the moment the ridiculous notion of using regional temperatures for one month to infer global temperature trends. Let us look at the April temperatures for the southern USA for April from 1980-2011. Trend is 0.5 F per decade. Worse yet for Solomon, air temperatures in April 2011 for that region were 3 F above the 1980-2011 average, and ranked the 13th warmest April since 1895. -
Stephen Baines at 02:48 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
It's ironic that Bud brings up Wegman at the very moment when his social network paper on climate scientists is getting retracted. No exactly falsification, but not exactly a vote of confidence either. -
DSL at 02:40 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Holy take-it-to-the-appropriate-thread, Budman! -
Albatross at 02:35 AM on 17 May 2011Lindzen Illusion #5: Internal Variability
Ken @101, Many keepers there, but this one really stood out. "not emotive catcalling.' Pot meet kettle. And yes, you misrepresented Dyson @95. Qu'elle surprise. And you have still avoided answering my question at 93 :) And, you seem to be blissfully unaware of the huge difference in measuring OHC in the top 700 m versus the top 1500-2000 m. Please stop confusing the two. Yet again, please remind me what you arguing here has to do with Lindzen's claim that: "What we have is data that says that maybe [warming] occurs, but it's within the noise....The point we have to keep in mind is that without any of this at all our climate would wander--at least within limits." You know, the subject that Dana spoke to. Otherwise Ken, you seem to be here for the sole purpose of arguing for the sake of arguing. -
Bud at 02:34 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
In science, a consensus or testimony by one of more authorities does not validate an hypothesis. However, experiments, data or analysis of data by another person, scientist or not, climate scientist or not, can be sufficient to falsify an hypothesis. For example: Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods (i.e. a misuse in principal component analysis) in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman’s analysis concludes that Mann’s work cannot support claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. The Wegman Report to Chairman of the U.S. Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: “Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the [Mann et al.98/99] analysis. As mentioned earlier in our background section, tree ring proxies are typically calibrated to remove low frequency variations. The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the [Mann et al 98/99] analyses, thus making possible the hottest decade/hottest year claim. However, the methodology of [Mann et al 98/99] suppresses this low frequency information. The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” Statisticians Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University invalidated the claims of so-called "climate scientists" Mann et al by using the tools of their science. As this audience is probably aware, the climate studies in question, by Dr. Michael Mann, et al, formed the basis for the IPCC conclusions (1) that the increase in 20th century Northern Hemisphere temperatures is “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” of the millennium. I am not trying to rehash the Mann arguments here. My point is that it is incorrect to say or assume that a non-climate scientist cannot falsify he claims of a climate scientist. (1) The IPCC report Climate Change 2001: Third Assessment Report consists of four sub-reports: 1) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, 2) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerabilities, 3) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, and 4) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report.Response:[DB] You have been pointed to various threads here that are more appropriate threads to discuss the topics you bring up. Please do so.
As others will no doubt be happy to point out, Wegman's report has been thoroughly discredited.
Future off-topic comments on this thread will be subject to deletion.
-
Albatross at 02:32 AM on 17 May 2011Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
CW, I am not going to argue with you about your misguided "perspective". You seem reticent to concede error, a common trait amongst "skeptics". So it is pointless trying to inform you. To CW and Arkadiusz: You seem intent on missing the point of Rob's post. Instead, happy to argue and nit pick at Rob's piece. Can I assume then that you support Solomon misinforming, misrepresenting the work of scientists and using the science as a political tool? Because that is what he is doing. As Stephan Leahy noted, Solomon is essentially a professional misinformer. Please let readers know where you stand on Solomon's propaganda. Thanks. -
Stephen Baines at 02:23 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Albatross is right. There are other threads and posts just a click away that deal directly with Bud's comments. He probably knows that and is only trying to distract from the topic at hand. John...spectacular work! At least member of Parlaiment can't say in honesty they weren't properly informed about the science, and the dis-science. The burden lies on them now to act according to their conscience and wisdom... -
John Hartz at 02:18 AM on 17 May 2011National Academy of Sciences on Climate Risk Management
A brief discussion of how “Many factors complicate and impede public understanding of climate change” on page 35 of the NRC report includes: "Most people rely on secondary sources for information, especially the mass media; and some of these sources are affected by concerted campaigns against policies to limit CO2 emissions, which promote beliefs about climate change that are not well-supported by scientific evidence. U.S. media coverage sometimes presents aspects of climate change that are uncontroversial among the research community as being matters of serious scientific debate. Such factors likely play a role in the increasing polarization of public beliefs about climate change, along lines of political ideology, that has been observed in the United States." Although this statement is specific to the USA, I suspect that the same situation exists in many other countries of the world. -
Albatross at 02:06 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
The misguided and oft refuted statement being made by Bud @23 are passé. Really, the "skeptics" and deniers of AGW (like Bud) just keep recycling the same old trash. Not sure what the quoted text @23 even has to do with this thread. Anyways, this myth has been dealt with here and here, and here. Now a true skeptic would seek out the information in the links above, instead of finding something that supports their preconceived and uninformed ideas. Please take further discussion of this point to one of the above linked threads. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:01 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud, does it say in the Mudelsee paper that, because CO2 acted as feedback in the past, it can't act as a forcing ever? Following links on the page where your reference took me, I found this Feedback between deglaciation, volcanism, and atmospheric CO2 Peter Huybers and Charles Langmuir. Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 286, Issues 3-4, 15 September 2009, Pages 479-491 Abstract: "An evaluation of the historical record of volcanic eruptions shows that subaerial volcanism increases globally by two to six times above background levels between 12 ka and 7 ka, during the last deglaciation. Increased volcanism occurs in deglaciating regions. Causal mechanisms could include an increase in magma production owing to the mantle decompression caused by ablation of glaciers and ice caps or a more general pacing of when eruptions occur by the glacial variability. A corollary is that ocean ridge volcanic production should decrease with the rising sea level during deglaciation, with the greatest effect at slow spreading ridges. CO2 output from the increased subaerial volcanism appears large enough to influence glacial/interglacial CO2 variations. We estimate subaerial emissions during deglaciation to be between 1000 and 5000 Gt of CO2 above the long term average background flux, assuming that emissions are proportional to the frequency of eruptions. After accounting for equilibration with the ocean, this additional CO2 flux is consistent in timing and magnitude with ice core observations of a 40 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the second half of the last deglaciation. Estimated decreases in CO2 output from ocean ridge volcanoes compensate for only 20% of the increased subaerial flux. If such a large volcanic output of CO2 occurs, then volcanism forges a positive feedback between glacial variability and atmospheric CO2 concentrations: deglaciation increases volcanic eruptions, raises atmospheric CO2, and causes more deglaciation. Such a positive feedback may contribute to the rapid passage from glacial to interglacial periods. Conversely, waning volcanic activity during an interglacial could lead to a reduction in CO2 and the onset of an ice age. Whereas glacial/interglacial variations in CO2 are generally attributed to oceanic mechanisms, it is suggested that the vast carbon reservoirs associated with the solid Earth may also play an important role." -
KR at 02:00 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud - "The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change." You should look at (i.e., please read) the CO2 lags temperature thread, where this is debunked. In the past, CO2 acted as a feedback, amplifying other changes such as Milankovitch cycles. We've artificially raised CO2, so now it's acting as a forcing. Natural fires in the past don't rule out arson in the present. -
Stephen Baines at 01:57 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
"Consensus is not a scientific process." No, it is the result of the scientific process. The fact that consensus has arisen from a notable lack of consensus in the not so distant past is a remarkable testament to the robustness of the evidence for the position that climate is changing and that humans are responsible. "But the gravy train was too big" It never ceases to amaze me that this argument gets any traction. Individual scientists could easily make quite a bit more money as hired guns, consultants for private interests or through grants from corporations than they do working for universities and competing for grant money. Plus, you wouldn't have to deal with those pesky reviewers. If greed were truly the motivating force here, how would such a consensus have been reached? In any case, you don't get grant money from anyone by claiming that a problem is basically settled and that you want to study it some more. Try running a business as a mechanic by fixing a car and then asking for more money to fix it again. In the end, it is the anti-AGW crowd that are keeping climate scientists working on this problem at all -for the most part they have moved on to more interesting and useful things. -
Stephen Leahy at 01:57 AM on 17 May 2011Drought in the Amazon: A death spiral? (part 1:seasons)
#20 ENSO is complicated and difficult to ascertain impacts of CC over short period of time. Here's what some experts said in my recent article published for a Latin American news service: “It would be surprising if there wasn’t an effect,” Trenberth said..... latest research seems to show “that we may even see new ‘flavours’ of ENSO emerge as we move into the future, Climate Change Could Be Worsening Effects of El Niño, La Niña -
JMurphy at 01:56 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud wrote : "The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change." Oh, is that the same as this : The evidence of forest fires prior to human influence contradicts humans as a cause of forest fires. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:52 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
23, Bud,The paleoclimate record of temperature and CO2 changes prior to human influence contradicts CO2 as a cause or forcing factor to significant temperature change.
This is like saying that studies of patients with advanced colon cancer prove that old age is not a factor in death. Of course, you could actually intelligently look at and understand the distinctions. That would lead to a different conclusion. Suggestion: Go do some studying first, and then reach conclusions after you have acquired and understand all of the information. -
JMurphy at 01:47 AM on 17 May 2011Special Parliament Edition of Climate Change Denial
Bud, what makes you believe and trust those not involved in Climate Science, when getting your information about Climate Science ? Is it all to do with your belief in a conspiracy and "gravy-train" ? If so, what evidence do you have ? Also, you still haven't given your backing to the 100 scientists against Evolution. Why not ? Don't you agree with them that "Consensus is not a scientific process" ? Or would you prefer to avoid being questioned, and continue copying-and-pasting your tenuous appeals to authority ?
Prev 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 Next
