Recent Comments

Prev  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  Next

Comments 88801 to 88850:

88801. Rob Honeycutt at 06:44 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam... "Rob it is not unreasonable to look at an area's (and not the world's) climate change and see if it fits with CO2 forcing." It is not unreasonable to look at an area to see if it is consistent with CO2 forced warming. But it is not reasonable to locate what you believe to be an inconsistency and dismiss all other information because of it. The appropriate scientific response would be to question why there is an inconsistency or even if your perception of the inconsistency is even accurate. That's how scientists get research money. "I found an area of science where we currently lack an understanding of the data or response being measured. Please give me money so we can better understand why this is the case." You have gone the other direction and decided because you think there is no correlation that the entire theory of AGW is wrong in spite of the overwhelming other evidence to the contrary. So, you are left with no theory, no explanation, nothing other than your desire for AGW to be wrong.
88802. Adam at 06:43 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       KR oceanic oscilations play a major role in Arctic climate. They most likely brought in warmer waters, which caused the previous Greenland warming and are most likely what caused the most recent Greenland warming. KR natural factors are indeed still present and can explain observed climate changes.
88803. Albatross at 06:42 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam, Citing the much discredited Soon (that is but one of many examples) is not helping your case-- also, correlation is not causation. It seems that you have been gleaning papers from the "Prudent path" document which support your beliefs without being skeptical of their validity or credibility. As KE has noted, "Recent warming could not have happened without AGW; other forcings don't add up. " And you continue to misrepresent Dr. Box. I'm sorry, but several people now have very patiently explained the errs of your ways to you, yet you are not listening. You may not realize it, but by choosing to go down this road, you are essentially trolling, and not convincing anyone who has an understanding of these matters.
88804. muoncounter at 06:42 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Rob#13: "they definitely don't agree with other data I'm locating..." Kelly O'Day shows another TSI/temp comparison that is vastly different from Soon's. Adam#14: "it is not unreasonable to look at an area's (and not the world's) climate change and see if it fits with CO2 forcing." Some would consider that a cherry-picking approach. "Greenland should be reacting to CO2, yet the fact that there is no correlation" You keep repeating that despite the correlation shown by Rob#4. Skeptics are known for their criticism of temperature records. If you look at the light blue line in the graph in #4, there are two years in the mid 1920's with extremely large upwards jumps. You've suggested filtering out 2003 and 2010 as anomalous: Why haven't those 1920's anomalies caught your attention? Or is it more convenient to be skeptical of things you want to disagree with than things that appear to support your position?
88805. Adam at 06:41 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       KR, "Soon is not known for his quality of science, and appears to have neglected the last 30 years of data in his graph. " If you had actually looked at the graph presented in Soon's paper you would see that he clearly includes the last 20 years. His data goes all the way up to 2005. I am not pushing a strawman argument. If there is no correlation, that shows that there is no significant causation. But the strong correlation between Arctic temps and the sun shows that the sun is most likely the Arctic's dominant driver and not CO2. And Rob Honeycutt just so you know Willie Soon has written a much more detailed paper on the link between the sun and the climate, which carries on from his 2005 paper. 'Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences' by Willie Soon published in 'Physical Geography' (2009)
88806. Rovinpiper at 06:36 AM on 14 April 2011
       Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
       Is there a model that incorporates aerosol and oceanic effects? This is a very common expert skeptic argument. John Christy just used it in testimony to the US House of Representatives earlier this year. No one seemed to have any answer to it. It seems like incorporating these effects into the GCMs would be a normal step.
88807. Rob Honeycutt at 06:36 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Definitely something fishy with Soon's chart on TSI. I'm finding numerous sources for TSI and none of them agree with Soon's representation.
88808. SumnerIII at 06:36 AM on 14 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       I like to think that the 'travesty' (in Trenberth's mind) isn't the absence of data, but that this knowledge could help (marginally, of course) in changing public opinion and policy formation. Every bit counts.
88809. KR at 06:35 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam - I'll repeat it again, look at the CO2 is not the only driver of climate thread for other forcings. The early century warming appears to have been due to high TSI and a decided lack of volcanic activity. The 1950-1970 cooling ties into sulfur aerosols, which decreased rapidly after the Clean Air act and other (international) attention to that pollution problem. Currently the insolation is dropping, we have a fair number of active volcanoes, and we're warming anyway - due to greenhouse gases, much higher CO2. The natural forcings that caused the early century warming are not currently active. Which is fortunate; if they were we would be warming at twice the current rate.
88810. Adam at 06:34 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Rob Honeycutt "My objection here is that you're quoting Dr Box's work as evidence that Greenland shows no signal of AGW which is diametrically opposed to the conclusions of Dr Box himself." Once again, personal opinions have no relevance to science. Whether or not Jason Box believes in AGW is irrelevant to the fact that his papers and data show that Greenland was equally warm 60 years ago. "You keep trying to assign a global response to a local record." Rob do you believe that post 1980 Greenland warming is caused by humans? If so do you agree that if it was human caused, then there would at least be a correlation between CO2 and Greenland temperatures? Rob it is not unreasonable to look at an area's (and not the world's) climate change and see if it fits with CO2 forcing. The mainstream media has constantly cited Greenland's melting ice as evidence of AGW, yet it has provided no evidence for it. Greenland should be reacting to CO2, yet the fact that there is no correlation pretty much shows Greenland climate change is not anthropogenic.
88811. Rob Honeycutt at 06:32 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam... I believe those charts from Soon require a bit more research because they definitely don't agree with other data I'm locating...
88812. shawnhet at 06:32 AM on 14 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       Albatross, "Surely you jest? Now your hand waiving is someone else's fault?" Hey, for all I know I may have totally misinterpreted the moderators approach, I was just explaining myself to the moderator. I was pointed to the cosmic ray thread a couple of times so I assumed that I was already skirting being OT. "That may be true, but again, one does not need to invoke GCRs or some other hitherto unknown mechanism to explain the observed warming. Surely you agree with that much?" I would pretty much agree with you *if* you qualify your statement for recent warming only. I think that there are plenty of longer term climate changes that do require some unknown mechanisms to explain them. Now, since I have answered your questions can you please point to what, specifically, it was that made you claim that I was sowing doubt or whatever? Keith, I agree that in the paper they find a linear correlation btw phi and TSI, however, that relationship does not hold constantly either on the short-term or extremely long-term time scales. Cheers, :)
       Moderator Response: [DB] Still committing credibility seppuku.
88813. TOP at 06:28 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       Interesting discussion of Artic Sea Level rise here. It raises the question as to what sea level means.
88814. KR at 06:28 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam - Blaming Arctic temperatures on the sun should be carried to the appropriate It's the sun thread: Soon is not known for his quality of science, and appears to have neglected the last 30 years of data in his graph. See again the CO2 is not the only driver of climate thread: by asserting that CO2 (and CO2 forcings only) don't match the temperature record, you're really pushing a Strawman argument. CO2 is part of the picture, not all of it, but it's become the dominant changing forcing causing recent warming.
88815. Adam at 06:27 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       KR polar regions are especially sensitive, so looking at what they're doing (specifically if there is any correlation to CO2) would indeed be very important in our understanding of climate change and the forces that drive it. KR, as for your argument that there is no correlation because 'co2 is not the only driver of climate' I will repeat my questions to you, which I asked Rob. Do you agree that the Greenland warming of 1920-1940 was equal to the 1980-2000 Greenland warming? If so, do you agree that CO2 is much higher than it was in the 1930's? If so, could you please tell me what other forcing caused the previous Greenland warming of 1920-1940? And could you also please explain why you don't think it could be that, which is causing the current Greenland warming? As for the increasing Greenland ice melt, I will state once again that evidence of warming (i.e. melting greenland ice) tells us nothing about what caused the warming in the first place.
88816. Rob Honeycutt at 06:23 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam... My objection here is that you're quoting Dr Box's work as evidence that Greenland shows no signal of AGW which is diametrically opposed to the conclusions of Dr Box himself. You keep making the same mistake that every skeptic seems to make when then look at Greenland. You keep trying to assign a global response to a local record. The point when you look at the 20th century record of Greenland is that there is an overall trend consistent with the overall global trend.
88817. Adam at 06:19 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Albatross, first of all that graph is based on the entire Arctic, which is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the current climate on the Greenland ice sheet. And as shown by Jason boxes graph, apart from the two anomously warm years 2003 and 2010, the current Greenland temperature is matched with the temperature it was 70 years ago. Secondly, I suggest that you read this paper 'Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years' by Willie Soon published in 'Geophysical Research Letters' (2005) Albatross Arctic temperature changes show a much better correlation with changes in the sun, than changes in CO2 concentration. Albatross, the current Arctic climate is very difficult to be explained by co2, and shows a much better link to natural forcings. Alabatross, the perfect correlation with changes in the sun, and the lack of any correlation with co2, surely support the argument that the Arctic climate is dominated by natural variability and not CO2.
88818. Alec Cowan at 06:19 AM on 14 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @RSVP #81 About commenting what dana1981 wrote, do that here. About your soapbox, not surprisingly, it contains ... soap.
88819. KR at 06:14 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Adam - "You have also not answered why the Greenland temperature variations don't show any correlation to carbon dioxide emissions." You might want to take a step back from CO2 (or a step forward?) and look at the global temperature anomalies. The Greenland data tracks the global anomalies reasonably well (mid century rise, drop until ~1970, increasing after that). The reason neither of these directly follow CO2 emissions is because CO2 is not the only driver of climate, as is discussed on that thread. The current temperature rise, in particular post-1970, cannot be accounted for without anthropogenic greenhouse warming: factors involved in earlier climate changes are insufficient or of the wrong sign to cause recent temperature rises, rises which we expect to continue for quite some time. We're headed to mid-Pliocene temperatures, where the sea level was ~25m higher due to ice melt. The concern is particularly strong since Greenland ice melt is increasing: As noted on the previous topic, there are a lot of different kinds of glaciers on Greenland, but many of them are subject to water temperatures in their melt rates, not just air temperatures. So: - You're mistaken in thinking that CO2 is the only driver of climate. - Recent warming could not have happened without AGW; other forcings don't add up. - Air temperature is not the only driver of glacial melt; rising sea temperatures (observed) are a huge influence. - Current warming is expected to continue for quite some time, based on the science and current policies. - This has nasty implications for sea level due to Greenland ice melt.
88820. Albatross at 06:09 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Rob @4, You are right of course. This graph also demonstrates that the Arctic is currently warmer than it was early in the 20th century: And again, for those hard of "hearing", it is not so much where we are now, but where we are heading under BAU.
88821. adrian smits at 06:08 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       First 12 inches per century doesn't seem very threatening.Second 20% of that rise is caused by irrigation from aquifers which won't last that much longer so the actual rise is somewhere between 9 and 10 inches at most.this is from your own ippc graph at the top of the page. Third this rise will probably be much less than that based on the last 9 or ten years especially if it cools for the next 15 or 20 years. So we come to 5 or 6 inches per century and I'm supposed to worry puleeeeeese!
88822. thepoodlebites at 06:04 AM on 14 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       Albatross #20 Why is the Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) paper always used here as the last word on the effects of a new grand minimum on future climate? The link is broken by the way. I have the original paper, five pages of model predictions with questionable assumptions and circular reasoning, as the conclusions are assumed in the premise. The climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is from private communications with A. Levermann, 3.4 C. And I see you have a convenient answer for the correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature anomalies. But your sources are outdated and don’t even consider that cycle 24 demonstrated the deepest minimum in over 100 years, please see updated solar cycle length. The evidence for possible future cooling based on cycle 24 being so quiet, should neither be dismissed or overlooked.
88823. Albatross at 05:58 AM on 14 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       Shawn, "and to the extent that I am handwaving it was an effort to forestall the inevitable Get-thee-to-a-nunnery response that I am off-topic." Surely you jest? Now your hand waiving is someone else's fault? "There are plenty of people who have suggested non-linear responses to indirect solar proxies for example see here" That may be true, but again, one does not need to invoke GCRs or some other hitherto unknown mechanism to explain the observed warming. Surely you agree with that much? And for every paper you quote showing that GCRs may have a discernible (yet tiny) impact of global SATs, I and others can show you and readers here papers which demonstrate that GCRs are not the silver bullet that 'skeptics' wish them to be. Again, Occam's razor Shawn.
88824. Adam at 05:57 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Once again I suggest that you read Chylek's paper. It explains about the two periods of warming, and why there is nothing unusual about the current one.
88825. Adam at 05:55 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       Rob Honeycutt, I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to show in your comment. Yes, the trend in Greenland throughout the 20th century is slightly greater than the global record, but it still doesn't change the fact that the warming that occurred from 1920-1940 was clearly equal to the 1980-2000 warming. As it clearly says on the graph for 1916-1932 the warming trend was 1.26 C/decade, but for the 1994-2010 warming it was only 0.97C/decade. I can't see how what you are saying in your comments, answers any of the points I have made. You have also not answered why the Greenland temperature variations don't show any correlation to carbon dioxide emissions.
88826. keithpickering at 05:53 AM on 14 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       shawnhet #31 Let's review the bidding for a moment. In Shawnhet #18, you said "Since we can be pretty sure that most of the leading candidates for indirect effects do not vary linearly with TSI ..." and in #19 Dana asked you to substantiate that claim. After a bit of back and forth, you substantiated that claim with the link to Frohlich et. al., "Correlation between Cosmic Ray intensity and Total Solar Irradiance during the last three solar cycles" and pointed us specifically to figure 5. Yet if we read the text, Frohlich et. al. tell us that there is a linear function that describes the correlation, namely TSI = Phi * 3.13 + 1363.7 So I fail so see how this substantiates your claim at all. Just because R < 1, that does not mean the relationship is non-linear.
88827. Bruce Frykman at 05:53 AM on 14 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       RE: PC- 335 RE: "It is a consensus of research results, built over many years. It is not some sort of vote in which people get to say what they believe. It is constrained by the results of a a very large body of scientific work. OK, I get it, science demands precise data but ethereal and formless consensus that cannot be quantified. Only politics requires precise consensus. RE: "Science has not been done by consensus, it's the other way around." I get it; consensus is a meta-process that builds science that can stand entirely upon its own legs. ( -Snip- ) RE: "As for Bob Carter, all you are demonstrating is how biased you are." Of course I am biased, to be human is to be biased. I would never trust anyone who claimed he was not. Its not the bias of our individuality that is of any importance but only that our biases may be freely aired. Science operates in a world of humans and of human bias. Your position appears to support the notion that there are a class of people who are not biased and are therefore what? ( -Snip- ) RE: "You believe him because you like what he says." Of course I do, and you don't like him for the reason that you don't like what he says - let him say it. RE: "Can you be sure that he is not corrupt?" I'm not a religious person, but I do find lessons to be taken from faith: Have you ever listened to Handel's beautiful Messiah? - "And we shall be raised incorruptable" ( -Snip- ) RE: "No, just like you can't be sure that all the other scientists you half accuse have done anything wrong." I 'have' accused no one, I do not trust the processes of climate science. I might make the same judgment of the processes of my own physician without accusing him of anything. RE: "In the El-Nino paper, he tried to push a conclusion that was not supported by the data." Oh by that you mean he is human? RE: "James Hansen has been under pressure, from his governement, with an official order; isn't that exactly the kind of thing you object?" If I can stand in the kitchen and take the heat I don't see why he can't - I'm not paid to do this.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic perambulations snipped. "I'm not paid to do this." Neither are we, pal. Neither are we.
88828. shawnhet at 05:44 AM on 14 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       I am not disagreeing to disagree, I am disagreeing *because* I disagree and to the extent that I am handwaving it was an effort to forestall the inevitable Get-thee-to-a-nunnery response that I am off-topic. There are plenty of people who have suggested non-linear responses to indirect solar proxies for example see here. http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/462/2068/1221.full
88829. Adam at 05:41 AM on 14 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Daniel Bailey and Ron Honeycutt, Albatross was the one that brought up the state of Arctic sea ice, not me. I was simply answering his points.
       Moderator Response: [DB] And you are welcome to respond to him on the Arctic Sea ICE thread of your choice (see here for a listing, provided you also place a link here to that comment you place there. See Rob's previous comment here for a proper example.
88830. Rob Honeycutt at 05:41 AM on 14 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Adam... I've posted a response to you on the "It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940" thread.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Thank-you!
88831. Rob Honeycutt at 05:39 AM on 14 April 2011
       It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
       This is a response to Adam carried over from the Zebras in Greenland thread. Adam... Here is a composite graph of Dr Box's work and GISS global data zeroed to the start of the GISS data. Is there no relationship between the two? No signature of AGW? None at all? I would contend that there is a clear signal when you compare the two trends. The only thing you can take from the Greenland data is that there is a much larger noise factor but you can clearly see that the overall trend for the 20th century is much greater than the global record, fully consistent with AGW theory.
88832. Dikran Marsupial at 05:36 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       dana1981 I would certainly agree there, the most important form of skepticism is self-skepticism. Once you lose that as a scientist, you are in real trouble. My motto is "Familiarity breeds contempt - and nobody is more familiar with my own work than I am!" ;o)
88833. dana1981 at 05:33 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       

       "I think he sincerely believes what he writes, even though it is objectively false."

       I think you could say that about a lot of the "skeptic" scientists, like Christy and Spencer, for example. Although Morner is certainly much more objectively wrong than the former two.
88834. Dikran Marsupial at 05:20 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       BTW, the criticism that the IPCC don't have expertise in sea level, and that they have been making adjustments to get the result they wanted is made not-so subtly in Figure 4 of his original paper (see the rightmost branch of the flow chart. Note particularly the feedback from the output of the "IPCC Global Warming Scenario" box (also contains the text "lacking specialisation in sea level research"!) back to the "present trend input data" box. With that, the number of self-citations and the Gilgamesh quote (pretentious - moi?), I am amazed the paper was published in a journal (other than E&E)
88835. Rob Honeycutt at 05:16 AM on 14 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Adam... The normal course here would be to say what thread you would like to discuss these issues on and post a link that every one can follow to that location. You need to remember that the topic here is Greenland glaciers.
88836. Dikran Marsupial at 05:10 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       Cheers dana1981, I could remember most of it from my investigation when the Telegraph article first started doing the rounds, the MEDIAS newsletter wasn't available then; now that it is, the story is rather more compelling/damning. The ironic thing is that Morner in his original paper quotes from Gilgamesh "Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression", the context? "Therefore, we have to discard the model output of IPCC (2001) as untenable, not to say impossible (ref to Morner paper and INQUA report)". Page 53, bottom of the second column. But as I said earlier, we shouldn't be too hard on Morner, I think he sincerely believes what he writes, even though it is objectively false.
88837. e at 05:09 AM on 14 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Bruce >Further, who confers the title "scientist." A scientist in the sense used here is one who actively practices the scientific method. More specifically, level of expertise in climate science is gaged by the amount of research published in relevant subject areas. This classification is discussed in the papers cited in this post.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please avoid the temptation to reply to these ludicrous questions of who is and who is not a 'scientist.'
88838. shawnhet at 05:02 AM on 14 April 2011
       Solar Hockey Stick
       Albatross, if you are going to imply that I am attempting to inflate uncertainty or whatever, can you please do me the courtesy of actually quoting me where I am doing this? From my POV, I have not talked about whatever uncertainties may exist at all. I have simply disagreed with dana's means of accounting for indirect effects. Am I not allowed to disagree with him? You are doing your cause much more harm than good here.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Albatross' point was this: You are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, which is your right as a person. But don't expect anyone reading your words to place any weight on them as you provide no links to substantive peer-reviewed publications which support your positions. Essentially, you are hand-waving, and thus committing intellectual seppuku.
88839. Adam at 05:01 AM on 14 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       ( -Snip- )
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic portion snipped. Adam, by insisting on staying on your off-topic message on this thread, you force the moderation of your own comments. Thus, you are doing it to yourself. See my response to Albatross for an initial list (there is amply more) of posts with comment threads delving more deeply into your claims and positions. To aid in your argumentation, I suggest reading the posts before commenting on them, as your points may have already been covered and dealt with thoroughly, previously. Thanks!
88840. les at 04:53 AM on 14 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Turns out, I'm a "mild and reasonable fellow" and, what's more, I speak with a soft and pleasing accent... Having established my credibility. I've read Mr. Frykmans' posts and have yet to see any evidence supporting his initial claims regarding corrupt practices. No acknowledgement of my reply regarding the practice of funding etc. Can we assume that Mr. Frykman has withdrawn these accusations and apologized?
88841. dana1981 at 04:51 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       Dikran #17 - excellent investigative work. You put in quite a bit of effort there to confirm that Morner and Monckton are full of you-know-what.
88842. Bob Lacatena at 04:49 AM on 14 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       191, Harry Seaward,

       ...those sectors that you listed you are compensated based on your experience, education, seniority, etc... and not a common pay.

       I'm not going to let this devolve into an argument about capitalism, communism, and socialism, but I should point out that this statement denotes a deep misunderstanding of what socialism is (especially considering that it has no one definition, and has meant many things depending on the period of time, sociopolitical conditions, and the parties involved). As far as a carbon tax goes:

       Right now most Americans aren't buying into it and the trend is increasingly negative. I don't know where you are from, or what your profession is, but the general public is not in agreeance with you.

       Even if this were true, most people were in favor of slavery for much of American history. Being in the majority does not make one right. Beyond this, I'm not sure that it's true. Fox News polls would say so, but I'm hardly about to trust Fox. And even then, if they don't believe so, it's because the denialist movement has been so effective in obfuscating the truth. But the fact is, quite simply, that global warming is real, the planet will continue to warm, and that fact will eventually become quite undeniable. The only question is when the majority will realize it, and act, and if it will be in time to alleviate much of the suffering that will accumulate beyond what is already inevitable.

       However, a carbon tax is still a prime example of redistribution of wealth that is a tenet of the socialist dogma.

       Again, no. Modern, actual socialism has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth, and trying to label any tax as socialist is clearly a debate tactic, meant to frighten people.

       If the purpose on putting a tax on FF use is to make other energy sources more attractive...

       Yes, because it makes using FF themselves more expensive, and therefore makes non-FF alternatives competitive in pricing. A tax on FF gives the consumer a choice. Then the consumers can (remember capitalism?) drive the ways in which we move into a non-FF based economy, through the choices they make (remember capitalism?) without the artificial influence that exists now, i.e. that FF are cheap primarily because the entire infrastructure is already built around FF.
88843. Bruce Frykman at 04:49 AM on 14 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       RE: "Criticism of scientific processes is not quickly deleted; criticism of the scientists is." I always thought of a "scientist" as an individual and I am unaware that I have unfairly characterized any scientist either living or dead on this forum. Just who is(are) "the scientists" that I may be sure not to offend any of them? Further, who confers the title "scientist." I used to have some very bright little girls next door who collected and classify insects in their own back yard. They make observations and collected data as to how their numbers varied from year to year. Were these little girls acting as scientists and would they be included in your group called "the scientists?"
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Your record of comments over the past few days shows that you find it easier to unfairly characterize a group than pick out an individual. There's a word for that kind of behavior and it ain't pretty. If you need to have the word 'scientist' defined for you, then you really are in the wrong place. Further nonsense like this will be deleted on sight.
88844. skywatcher at 04:43 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       I'm still busy picking my jaw up off the floor. This wasn't some kind of delayed April Fools joke by the "S"PPI was it? Two of the most entertainingly wrong figures I've seen in a long time, but having seen potholer54's recent series on Monckton's recent efforts, I suppose I should be less surprised. It's terrifying that Monckton, Morner, Booker get away with being able to present such misrepresentations, and good that they are highlighted for what they are as often as possible. Denial Depot is indeed excellent!
88845. Albatross at 04:35 AM on 14 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       Adam, I am no hypocrite. I am, of course, familiar with McKay et al. (2008), in fact, Polyak was one of the co-authors on that paper. What you fail to note is that the McKay et al. study was for a single location, Polyak et al. (2010) was more comprehensive and included numerous locations across the basin. McKay et al.(2008) does not support your strawman argument/s-- climate scientists know very well that the climate has changed before and have some firm theories as to what was driving those changes (that is in part why they are so concerned about the rapidity and amplitude of the recent changes, but more of more concern is where we are heading if we continue on this path. Changes are happening faster than they anticipated and that doesn't bode well). Anyhow, the climate is changing again now, and this time there is a new/additional climate driver on the block-- humans via elevated GHGs from burning of FFs and land use change. Your logical fallacy suggests that because there were fires before humans arrived on the scene, there is no way that humans are causing fires now. I am trying to find a thread where to continue this without further detracting from Mauri's and Daniel's efforts. Ideas Daniel or Muoncounter?
       Response:

       [DB] Albatross, Adam's position primarily seems to be either:

       1. "It's not Happening"
       2. Even if it is happening, which it's not, "It's not us"

       Looking through the Taxonomy listing, I find:

       It's not happening

       • 1934 - hottest year on record
       • Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

       It's not us

       • There's no empirical evidence
       • CO2 effect is weak
       • Climate's changed before

       1. Greenland was green
       2. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
       3. It's a natural cycle
       4. It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940

       • There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       • It cooled mid-century

       1. CO2 lags temperature
       2. Warming causes CO2 rise
       3. It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low

       • Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature
       • An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature

       Take your pick.  There's plenty of other specific blog posts not listed in the above Taxonomy listing.

       Thanks!

88846. Dikran Marsupial at 04:33 AM on 14 April 2011
       Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level
       Right, on to the claim about the IPCC fudging the satelite sea level data. Well, the first paper Morner appears to have published on this is this one: Mörner, N.-A., "Estimating future sea level changes from past records", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issue 1-2, January 2004, Pages 49-54 (www) Figure 2 of that paper gives the "raw" TOPEX/POSEIDON data for 1992-2000 "before any filtering or sliding mean average". Sadly he gives no source for the data giving in this figure in the paper. This was one of the things pointed out by a comment on Morner's paper published by Nerem et al. (Cazenave is one of the "et al."). Nerem, R.S. et al., "Comment on 'Estimating future sea level change from past records' by Nils-Axel Mörner", Global and Planetary Change Volume 55, Issue 4, February 2007, Pages 358-360 (www) Nerem et al say that Morners paper "completely misrepresents the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satelite altimetry mission" and explain why that is the case. The first major criticism of Morner's paper is that it doesn't include a single reference to any altimetry study, all of which apparently refute his claim that there is no change in global mean sea level. I checked this, and it is indeed true, there are no references to any paper on TOPEX/Poseidon. Of the 33 references there are, there are however no less than 17 references to his own work. This would have rung warning bells for me had I been a reviewer! Back to Figure 2. Nerem et al. note that Morner gave no source for the data in his figure, but the speculate that it is the original raw release of data, with no corrections made for known problems with the instrument on the satelite. Note this is not about "filtering" or "sliding mean averaging" it is about calibration for known problems. These adjustments are well documented in the journals and Nerem et al give the references. So Morner has used raw data, which are known not to give an accurate indication of actual sea level changes due to calibration issues. Surely if he had researched the issue properly, he would at least have referenced the papers describiing these adjustments, and explained why they were incorrect. But that was obviously not the case. Nerem et al also briefly describe the nature of the adjustments for those who are interested. The story doesn't end there, because Morner wrote a comment on the comment. Mörner, N.-A., "Comment on comment by Nerem et al. (2007) on 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' by Nils-Axel Mörner (2004)", Global and Planetary Change, Volume 62, Issue 3-4, June 2008, Pages 219-220 (www) He starts of by criticising Nerem et al for not publishing their comment in a timely manner, which is ridiculous there is no "statute of limitations" that means you can get away with being wrong provided nobody notices for a year or two! He also complains that the first he knew of it was when it appeared in print. Surely for consistency, he should have sent his original paper to the TOPEX/Poseidon group for comment before publication - it is a pity that he didn't. Morner does however say where he got the data from, it was from a MEDIAS newsletter, and he obtained his curve was a "redrawing of this graph". This newsletter article is available on-line here, and this is the graph from that article: The caption is as follows "Mean rise in the sea level observed by TOPEX/POSEIDON between October 1992 and April 2000 (about 1 mm/year)" So Morner has redrawn the plot from the newsletter, claiming that it shows no trend, when the caption of the figure in the article clearly states that there is a trend of 1 mm/year and a trendline is clearly depicted on the plot! Does Morner mention that? No, in fact in his comment on the comment, he reiterates that there is no trend in the data. Morner then says the figure reappears later with a greater tilt, and asks why that is. He then answers his own question by saying that the data in his figure include the adjustments described in a paper by Mitchum, but not later adjustments described in several other papers describing later adjustments to the data. He rejects these as being "subjective interpretations", which is about the weakest rebuttal of a criticism I have seen in a journal! So in otherwords, Morner redrew data from a newsletter (rather than actually getting the data and replotting it), ignored the fact that the original caption and diagram explicitly showed a non-zero trend, ignored even the existence of a set of adjustments made to the data due to known issues with the instruments, rejected them as "subjective interpretation" when this was pointed out. Says the "calibrations" (quotes his) are "very strongly debated" without giving a reference to a paper questioning the calibration. Does any of this inspire confidence? I'd say "no". Monckton outght to have checked out his source on this one a bit more carefully.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Links to newsletter updated to used Web Archive as original seems to be no longer available.
88847. Adam at 04:32 AM on 14 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       muoncounter, could you please actually provide the articles, which actually answer the points I brought up? Before my comments were deleted, everyone just kept ignoring what I was saying, or just making weak claims like 'Greenland does not represent the whole world', so therefore it doesn't matter. Muoncounter, as I explained in my comments, there is no correlation between co2 and Greenland temperature. If Co2 was driving Greenland warming, there should have been a correlation, but there wasn't. The current Greenland heat wave is exactly parallel to the previous heat wave, and shows no anthropogenic signal. Could you please provide peer reviewed papers answering those points. Nobody here has provided them yet.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic portions struck out. See my response to Albatross below for a plenitude of posts where your positions have been addressed, many times before. Veteran contributors here follow the Recent Comments listings, so any activity you place on any thread that interests them will show up. If, after reading the posts, you still have questions on them, place your questions there. Someone will answer you. But do it on the most appropriate thread, which this one is not.
88848. e at 04:30 AM on 14 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       Bruce, Don't worry I have seen your deleted comments. My request was simple, let's forget the whole "is their consensus"/"isn't there consensus" argument and focus on the actual evidence. Do you agree with this approach? If so, the next steps are simple: organize your own thoughts on the evidence (do not just summarize what Bob Carter has to say), then find where the subject is covered in this site's List of Skeptic Arguments. If the content of the post does not address your concerns, then feel free to post your thoughts within that thread. Your posts will be clearly visible to anyone checking the recent comments link from the top menu. No need to clutter this thread with off-topic discussion. Is this not a reasonable request?
88849. skywatcher at 04:28 AM on 14 April 2011
       There is no consensus
       #336 Bruce - It's hard to trust what you say when you wander into tired old arguments by your second sentence. The world is not cooling in recent times, as evidenced by 2010 being the warmest or 2nd warmest year on record (depending on your dataset) and the 2000's being the warmest decade. It is interesting to plot the global temperature data with a regression line from 1975-2000, then extrapolate that line through the last 10 years of temperature data. Most residuals lie above the line, indicating that this decade was even warmer than would have been forecast in 2000. Tamino's excellent post Riddle Me This illustrates this beautifully. And yes, there's a scientific consensus about that...
88850. Bob Lacatena at 04:19 AM on 14 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       188, Harry Seaward,

       Yes, your quote below is absolutely correct, but...

       Yes, except that the quote wasn't directed at you, and had to do with a thread that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.

Prev  1769  1770  1771  1772  1773  1774  1775  1776  1777  1778  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  Next