Recent Comments

Prev  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  Next

Comments 89351 to 89400:

89351. Dan Moutal at 04:22 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Gilles "why is it interesting to make *alternatives* more attractive, if it doesn't lead eventually to a smaller amount of extracted FF integrated over time?" Lets not use the word 'attractive' because it can mean many different things, even in this context. Lets use the 'less expensive' instead. What the carbon tax does is make FF use more expensive, which makes alternatives relatively less expensive. This eventually WILL lead to a smaller amount of FF from being extracted (aren't well all price sensitive). The question is at what level should the tax be implemented. And as you mentioned in France people make due even though gas prices are much higher, so likely here in BC a higher tax wouldn't be ruinous. In fact back in 2007 the Federal Conservative government commissioned a report (which they then tried to bury) which indicated that a $50/tonne carbon tax would have a modest impact on the economy at first, then provide slight benefits.
89352. Albatross at 04:15 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Re #1, I agree. I think Villabolo probably meant to say that: "Our measurements of how much energy is in our atmosphere climate system are accurately known, however." Although I might contend that even that statement might not be 100% true, b/c we do not have comprehensive measurements from the deep oceans. The point is that people have grossly distorted and spun Trenberth's original statement for ideological purposes, and that is indeed a travesty. Contrarians and skeptics would improved their pitiful credibility is they could acknowledge as much first before nit picking (as I am sure they will do on this thread). So commenter @1, do you agree with how people distorted and spun Dr. Trenberth's comment? Let us get that out of the way first.
89353. syzygy at 04:12 AM on 10 April 2011
       Skeptical Science in other media
       Thanks John for your efforts on this dialogue. As a professed Christian, I find the science/Christianity debate somewhat tiresome and unnecessary. I think that many Christians adopt the disconnection due to a lack of A. Knowledge, B. Faith, C. Confidence that science has provided us an amazing look into the creation around us. I don't feel that scientific discovery undermines my worldview the same way that Francis Collins, the Head of the Human Genome Project, doesn't believe that it undermines his. I'm glad to see people will to profess their faith have an open, honest and safe conversation about science.
89354. Gilles at 04:02 AM on 10 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       obviously Muoncounter hasn't carefully read the prediction. ;). Now Popper would say that a theory should be disproved by the fact that its prediction are not verified. But what if logicman's prediction isn't ? would you deduce that after all the artic ice melting is not due to anthropogenic factors? most probably, not. This means that logicman's predictions are *not* a solid test of the theory. That's just , say, like weather forecast, some probabilistic estimate, knowing the general physics of the ice. But of course they could have been made whatever the cause of the melting would be. Even if it were a natural cycle, observing the thickness of the ice, the cracks in the pack, and so on, could have led to the same kind of predictions (I'm not saying it is, I try to quantify the discriminating value of the prediction). So is there another feature that could unambiguously really proves, not that ice is melting more these last years (we all agree on that), but that it melts * mainly because of anthropogenic factors* ? is there a specific characteristic feature, that could prove it without discussion ?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Logicmans prediction was not a test of a specific theory, just a test of his ability to predict the course of the Arctic ice melt. Popper would still approve of that, I'm sure. However, your last sentence demonstrates that you haven't understood Popper at all, you can't prove any theory regarding the cause of the melting, only disprove.
89355. GFW at 03:59 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       scaddenp, where was that photo you posted taken? (the aerial view of a coastline)
89356. Gilles at 03:48 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       "Our measurements of how much energy is in our atmosphere are accurately known, however." ?? I don't understand this sentence - what do you mean ? the atmosphere stores only a tiny amount of energy, and it's constantly changing - GW is certainly *not* a permanent storage of energy in the atmosphere !
89357. Bob Lacatena at 03:22 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       

       Extra CO2 and global warming means of course a huge increase in plant growth.

       Statements like this always demonstrate such an extreme ignorance of both climate and plant biology that I usually need to go buy a new computer (having smashed, in a fit of impotent, annoyed rage, the one I was using to read the offending sentence).
89358. Bob Lacatena at 03:04 AM on 10 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       50, Ken,

       So how about putting some numbers on your assertion in the light of the above facts.

       Ummm... isn't that the point of Flanner's paper? So you're implying that my position has no credibility unless I invest the time and energy into performing the effort, for a mere comments thread, equivalent to the paper under discussion? How about we stick with Flanner, as summarized in the above post:

       However, if the current pattern holds then this would boost the best estimate of global warming temperature rises by about 20%

89359. Albatross at 02:22 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       JMurphy @64, I agree completely with your stance on this. The person is question may not realise it, but they are trolling. I have asked them twice now on this thread to speak to the topic at hand (Tamino's expose of the fatally flawed analysis of the Houston and Dean paper) and they have avoided doing so. So it is likely that the trolling is an effort to detract by the failure of yet another 'skeptic' paper. Those trying to argue it is not bad et cetera should please take the argument to the "It is not bad" thread.
89360. JMurphy at 01:55 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       daniel maris wrote : "The Stern report! No one takes any of that very seriously in the UK. Even climatists tend to gloss over it, because really it was just "think of a number and double it"" I find it amazing (and the height of arrogance) how some people can project their own political beliefs and opinions onto not just some others but everyone else - in this case, in the UK. Those statements I have quoted, have no basis in reality whatsoever, and it is now apparent that most of this poster's comments so far have been a litany of unsubstantiated, inaccurate and self-denying wishful thinking. Is there any chance of having some facts, backed up by references ? Until you start showing some, your comments can be taken as evidence-light, misinformed opinion.
89361. Phil at 01:37 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       daniel maris @61 The Stern report! No one takes any of that very seriously in the UK. Even climatists tend to gloss over it, because really it was just "think of a number and double it". Hmm, kindly do not speak for me, or other UK citizens (like Phil Scadden) Stern is always happy to include figures on the negative side, but not on the positive. Extra CO2 and global warming means of course a huge increase in plant growth. I doubt you'll find he put any plus signs in for that. Stern discusses the positive, and negative, effects on crop yields here
89362. RobH at 01:04 AM on 10 April 2011
       CO2 lags temperature
       A nice change to find a level-headed scientific discussion for a change - thank you for the time and effort involved. As a non-chemist/physicist I seek comment on a related matter. Papers, blogs and posts elsewhere (eg www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Interglacials-and-CO2.pdf and various Wiki entries)throw Be10 variations found in ice cores and various sediment cores into the CO2/temp lag discussion. I believe cosmic ray flux a bit far fetched as an explanation for global temperature variation, but am not qualified to form an opinion.
       Moderator Response: The cosmic rays argument is covered here. In short current evidence does not support the hypothesis.
89363. logicman at 00:57 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       #61 - daniel "Extra CO2 and global warming means of course a huge increase in plant growth." The widely reported decline in tree growth is due to the heat stress, which has overwhelmed the trees' ability to take advantage of excess CO2 to promote growth." Silva LCR, Anand M, Leithead MD (2010) Recent Widespread Tree Growth Decline Despite Increasing Atmospheric CO2. PLoS ONE 5(7): e11543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011543 http://www.plosone.org/article... "The idea that having to deal with sea level makes a country poor is ridiculous. If it was true, then the Netherlands would be the poorest country on the planet, rather than one of the richest." The history of the Netherlands shows that land reclamation was performed in stages as the wealth became available to pay for it. A basic principle of economics states that if one thing is purchased then the buyer must forgo the purchase of other things. This is called opportunity cost. Sea wall construction diverts funds from other uses. In the poorest countries the protection of land is bought at the price of less money spent on health and education, etc. That gets you an F in biology, an F in economics and an F in history. Because your use of straw men is too transparent, you get an F in rhetoric as well.
89364. Dikran Marsupial at 00:45 AM on 10 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       logicman@214 I'm sure Popper would approve! ;o)
89365. logicman at 00:41 AM on 10 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       #211 - Gilles. My prediction was for April 07 plus or minus 3 days. The ice bridge main plug has been thinning and cracking. It is under tremendous pressure and will soon finish breaking up. After April 10, if the ice bridge has not broken up then I will accept that my forecast was out by however many days the ice bridge survives after April 10. If the ice bridge completely fails to break up this year then my score for that specific prediction will be zero out of 100 and I will buy you at least one beer. :)
89366. Dikran Marsupial at 00:31 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       muoncounter - in which case, Gilles' criterion is incorrect both scientifically and economically. For comparison, here in the U.K. petrol is about 134p per litre (which works out at about $8.73 per gallon). Civilisation has not gound to a halt here, so the US still has some room for manoever! ;o)
89367. Djon at 00:30 AM on 10 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       "My Mom is Hot" - think Mother Earth or Mother Nature is my guess.
89368. muoncounter at 00:29 AM on 10 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Gilles#211: "I'm not at all a specialist of ice sea. ... my opinion is : well, wait and see." Wouldn't it be preferable to consult specialists for their opinions? "First we're already on April 9th, so what about the first one ? " Breakup is underway. Score: Prediction 1, Wait and see attitude 0.
89369. daniel maris at 00:19 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Scaddenp - The Stern report! No one takes any of that very seriously in the UK. Even climatists tend to gloss over it, because really it was just "think of a number and double it". Stern is always happy to include figures on the negative side, but not on the positive. Extra CO2 and global warming means of course a huge increase in plant growth. I doubt you'll find he put any plus signs in for that. Muoncounter - The idea that having to deal with sea level makes a country poor is ridiculous. If it was true, then the Netherlands would be the poorest country on the planet, rather than one of the richest. I am sure there are lots of young unemployed men in Egypt who would be only too happy to be given jobs building a sea wall. Having to build a sea wall would just mean there was less money for the corrupt ruling elite to spend on trinkets in European capitals.
89370. muoncounter at 00:14 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       DM#43: "Thus if alternatives cut the rate of our emissions sufficienlty" And what controls the rate of emissions? Here is direct evidence that increasing the price of fossil fuels (in this case gasoline) decreases demand. -- click for full scale The horizontal axis is annual miles driven per capita in the US; the vertical is USD/gallon. Plotted this way, the curve moves back and forth; apparently NYT doesn't think in terms of functions. But the message is clear: when the price goes up, we drive less.
89371. Bob Lacatena at 00:09 AM on 10 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       50, Ken, As an aside, concerning the Arctic Circle, I merely mistyped my sentence... I'd meant to say "within the Arctic Circle at 75˚ (which is where the edge of the ice generally is in March/April, and is right now, and so is the primary area of concern). Your constant efforts to nitpick people's words and then pedantically carry on about it are neither helpful to debate nor appreciated, and I personally think they reflect rather poorly on you yourself rather than the people whom you are criticizing. [Moderators: Yes, I'm in a very bad mood this morning, and so have little patience for some things.]
89372. Bob Lacatena at 00:03 AM on 10 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       50, Ken,

       if you compare the Arctic circle with the Equator

       The amount of insolation in the Arctic does not need to match the Equator for it to be relevant to the Earth's climate. All of your attempts to try to redirect the discussion around this are just gamesmanship.
89373. Bob Lacatena at 23:11 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       40, Gilles,

       sorry but I must have missed a point : why is it interesting to make *alternatives* more attractive, if it doesn't lead eventually to a smaller amount of extracted FF integrated over time?

       Obviously that is the point, and you know it. But you yourself said:

       I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either

       So which is it, Gilles, do you get this, or don't you? Let me make it really, really, simple for you, so that you can't craft another careful half-truth to help confuse people who are reading. A small tax on carbon will encourage three behaviors: 1) Energy efficiency, reducing overall use (such as improving insulation in a home) 2) Reduction in use, reducing overall use (such as choosing a vacation spot closer to home, or cutting back on short trips to the store for bread and milk) 3) Greater incentive to make use of carbon-neutral energy sources, which could ultimately replace some or all FF (such as the development of solar, wind and nuclear sources, and the infrastructure required to use such power in vehicular transport) Now, I know you're sitting there just chomping at the bit to trot out the tired argument that if the cost of FF goes down through increased efficiency, use will simply increase because it's cheaper. You've hinted at this with your statement that "it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either." That last statement is, in fact, false, for three reasons. First, the carbon tax can be incrementally increased to keep FF use high. Basically, just because a "free" system works that way, it doesn't mean that FF must work that way. Second, as the tax helps to make carbon-neutral fuel sources cheaper, by improving the technology behind them and the infrastructure that must be in place to support them, then FF will themselves become more expensive in comparison. FF will not necessarily become cheaper as efficiency grows. They are not expensive now because the entire infrastructure of the world is built around them. When that is no longer the case, they will no longer be cheap. Basically, competition from other power sources will drive the cost of FF higher (once those other power sources are given a fighting chance, by not competing against a power source that in effect has a monopoly and infrastructure and customer base). And, lastly, we can continue to use fossil fuels, and there are cases (such as airline fuel, plastics, and some fertilizers) where we possibly should or must. But as long as we can reduce the rate at which we use those fuels, we are okay, and in fact it will allow them to last longer. Which brings us back to the common denial alarmist meme, which is that if we stop using FF, civilization will end... and yet by using FF at such a prodigious rate, we are therefore hastening our own destruction.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Can I suggest we all take a less agressive tone towards Gilles? If his questions are genuine, and agressive tone is likely to prevent him from accepting the answer; if he is merely trolling then an aggressive dispute is exactly what he wants, so why give it to him? Either way, the truth is best served by calm answering of his questions (and leave the moderators do deal with anything that strays from the comments policy).
89374. Marcus at 23:02 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       BTW Gilles, in one of your previous rants about how much oil & coal was left to be extracted, someone rightly pointed out that the same is true of blue asbestos-yet we don't mine that anymore due to the obvious health dangers posed. Its interesting though how this analogy can be taken further. You see, long before blue asbestos was finally outlawed, there was *very* strong evidence that the asbestos industry *knew* about the dangers of its products, but did its level best to hide those dangers, & publicly attack anyone who tried to blow the whistle. Indeed, there is evidence that the insurance industry was also aware of the dangers posed by asbestos, as they refused to give insurance to anyone who worked in the asbestos industry-way back in the 1930's. Seems the Denial Industry has been at work for many, many decades-& in many, many industries.
89375. Dikran Marsupial at 23:02 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Giles The total amount of FF consumed integrated over time is not the correct metric to look at. The natural environment has been taking up about half our emissions every year; if the rate of our emission remain below the level that the natural environment can absorb (loosely speaking), then atmospheric CO2 will not rise at an unmanagable rate. Thus if alternatives cut the rate of our emissions sufficienlty, the consumption of FF consumed integrated over time is essentially irrelevant. Burning all the FF is fine, provided we don't do it faster than the environment (possibly with our help) can cope with.
89376. Ken Lambert at 23:01 PM on 9 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Sphaerica #49 "I'll also readily admit that this is at the edge of the area of interest, and that as one moves north, the angle decreases, but we are not interested in getting anywhere near the pole at this point. We're talking mostly about the Arctic Circle at 75˚N, where the peak angle of incidence would be 38.4˚... still close enough to 40˚ that the albedo of the ocean is substantially different from that of ice. So stop misrepresenting my position to make yourself look smart and your position look tenable." The Arctic circle is at latitude 66.56 degrees N - not 75 degrees N. 90 degrees minus the Earth tilt (23.4 degrees) = 66.6 degrees to one decimal place. Perhaps a bit of Wiki might help: *The Arctic Circle marks the southern extremity of the polar day (24-hour sunlit day, often referred to as the "midnight sun") and polar night (24-hour sunless night). North of the Arctic Circle, the sun is above the horizon for 24 continuous hours at least once per year and below the horizon for 24 continuous hours at least once per year. On the Arctic Circle those events occur, in principle, exactly once per year, at the June and December solstices, respectively.* Now if you stood on one point on the Arctic circle for 24 hours starting at the June summer solstice at noon, you would see the sun at 46.8 degrees incidence. 6 hours later you would see it at 23.4 degrees, at midnight it would be at 0 degrees, 6 hours later at 23.4 degrees and at noon back to 46.8. So the Arctic circle angle of incidence is above your magic 40 degrees for only a couple of hours per day in mid-summer. If you move to 70 degrees N, then the angle of incidence within that circle is *never* above 40 degrees all year round. Now at the equinoxes - September and March you will see the sun at 23.4 degrees at noon, 0 degrees 6 hours later, and -23.4 degrees at midnight (dark). So in 3 months you have moved from 46.8 to 23.4 degrees at noon which if linearized is 7.8 degrees/month. 46.8 - 7.8 = 39 degrees. You will have roughly one month either side of the June solstice where you are seeing the sun above 40 degrees. Similarly of your 24 hour mid-summer day - you will drop roughly 3.9 degrees per hour in incidence angle either side of noon. Only for 4 hours a day will you be above 40 degrees in midsummer. When the two effects are combined - the upshot is that on the Arctic circle you will only be above 40 degrees sun incidence angle for maximum 4 hours a day at the solstice for only 2 months of the year at noon. Furthermore, if you compare the Arctic circle with the Equator, the rough exposure time above 40 degrees incidence is approximated as - Arctic Circle : 2/12 (months) x 4/24 (hours) = 0.028 ie 2.8% of the year. Equator : 12/12 (months) x 6.7/24 (hours) = 0.28 ie 28% of the year. The annual exposure time over 40 degrees at the Equator is 10 times that at the Arctic circle and at a much higher average incidence angle (between 40 and 90 degrees) You say: "But your position is that the angle of incidence is too low (it's not), the albedo of the Arctic waters is too high (it's not), the length of day doesn't matter (it does), and the duration of sunlight of 3 months for 20 to 24 hours a day is too short (it's not)." So how about putting some numbers on your assertion in the light of the above facts.
89377. Marcus at 22:55 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "sorry but I must have missed a point : why is it interesting to make *alternatives* more attractive, if it doesn't lead eventually to a smaller amount of extracted FF integrated over time?" Well at least I *have* a point Gilles-you just seem to have a PR based agenda centered around repeating the same catch-phrases over & over, in the hope that we'll just finally accept your point of view. My point, though, is that as alternatives to fossil fuels become more attractive to energy consumers, demand for energy from fossil fuel sources will decline; when that happens, the profit margins for the fossil fuel industry will drop to a point where it will no longer be worth extracting fossil fuels at all. Indeed, my prediction is that a combination of a carbon tax, removal of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry & the naturally rising costs of extraction will lead to many companies switching their attentions to more sustainable-& profitable-areas. Of course in the meantime they'll fight tooth & nail to retain their virtual monopoly in those nations where they enjoy it-through both the media & political process.
89378. Bob Lacatena at 22:49 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Seaward,

       This is classic redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx is smiling in his grave right now.

       A singularly uninspired, grossly exaggerated, insight-less and 100% false characterization of the issue, designed to cause a knee-jerk negative response in people who are (foolishly) still afraid of communism (primarily the 60+ crowd).
89379. Harry Seaward at 22:11 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       This is classic redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx is smiling in his grave right now.
89380. Jessie Wells at 22:01 PM on 9 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       Thanks for the post + photos John! It was a beautiful day, for the music, signs, speakers, and crowds at the info stalls - and definitely a demonstration of the power of solar energy - from above, and reflected from the giant solar-thermal concentrator that is King George Square. Did you see the little kids in t-shirts painted with 'we are the solar generation' ?
89381. David Horton at 21:40 PM on 9 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       Disappointing to hear the Swan interview - climate change was a "moral and economic matter" I think was the phrase. Um, Wayne, you left out "environmental". Still, best not to sound like a Greenie in the Gillard government I suppose.
89382. Darcindora at 21:21 PM on 9 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       well done Brisvagas great signs, great sense of humour, and looks like a great bunch of people :D
89383. Ken Lambert at 20:24 PM on 9 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Gilles et al I think Gilles needs to tighten up his arguments - a bit of advice from one who is on his side of the debate. Anyone who wants some really relevant numbers on this argument - head over to the Flanner thread here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Flanner2011.html#46658 where Sphaerica and Tom Curtis and me are in play. It is interesting to note that Moderator DM is very active in instructing Gilles. Having the power to delete one's opponents and not one's friends is wide open to abuse. I suggest Moderators need moderating themselves if this site is to be taken seriously as a contributor to the AGW debate. I have corrected some of the gross errors in other's numbers on this thread - without challenge from anyone including the Moderators who do know something about these numbers. If Moderators are to be pro-active and respected - they should suggest corrections to both pro-AGW arguments and anti-AGW arguments which are obviously factually wrong. That will discourage the tyre kickers, and trollers (a la Gilles), and lead to a higher standard of debate.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Do not worry about this site being taken seriously; that is not at issue. Further, demonstrate respect for the Comments Policy and the Moderators and perhaps you, too can contribute to a higher standard of debate.
89384. Gilles at 19:40 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Marcus :" Wow, you really *are* a broken record, aren't you Gilles? Nobody has suggested that a Carbon Tax-alone-will reduce the extraction or consumption of fossil fuels. The point is to make the *alternatives* more attractive by comparison." sorry but I must have missed a point : why is it interesting to make *alternatives* more attractive, if it doesn't lead eventually to a smaller amount of extracted FF integrated over time?
89385. Dikran Marsupial at 19:00 PM on 9 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       johnd@127 That is what references are for. In scientific publications, you don't repeat information on issues that the reader ought to be familiar with every time a subject is discussed. Instead you give a reference, allowing the reader to look more deeply. Scientists (and the interested layman) shouldn't rely on looking at diagrams, you need to read the text and follow the references and do background reading.
89386. Annette at 18:54 PM on 9 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       It was a great turn out. Very positive. Wayne Swan looked a bit like he didn't really want to be there. He 'swanned' past me at one stage with his bodyguards. I have one interesting photo with him talking to someone while his was rubbing the side of his nose with his finger. Interesting body language. ;) Good to also see that there was attention given to the issues with CSG and the problems that landowners in Tara are facing.
89387. johnd at 18:43 PM on 9 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Tom Curtis at 18:16 PM, it's all very well to find justification now with the benefit of hindsight and the fact that most people have now seen the relevant graphs, but where are the graphs that accompanied the two extracts you provided? Without accompanying graphs or data of some form, anyone reading it at the time it was published would have had no way of quantifying or even visualising whether the divergence was rather minor, or significant. Certainly anyone reading the explanations cold could not be expected to understand just how dramatic the divergence actually was. Are you able to provide the graphs that accompanied the explanations in each of the assessment reports that allowed the readers to appreciate the scale of the divergence as they were reading about it for the first time?
89388. Megan Evans at 18:26 PM on 9 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       "blinking step into the sun..." LOL Fantastic photos John, sorry I didn't get to bump into you (not much room to move really). The 'My Mom is Hot' placard is in response to the apparently serious placard present at the Canberra anti-climate tax rally the other week and subsequently parodied on Crikey . A great turnout today!
89389. Tom Curtis at 18:16 PM on 9 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Actually, Ryan, I believe that there are many deniers who either falsely believe that instrumental temperatures have declined since 1998, or falsely believe that the 1930's and 1940's where hotter than the 1990's and 2000's; and who further falsely believe that the temperature record has been deliberately massaged to conceal this truth; and who believe that his is what "hide the decline" refers to. Deniers who make this sort of claim may be in the minority; but it only needs a minority of a very large group to result in the claim being made often. I don't particularly care why the authors chose a particular terminology in their private correspondence. What I care about is their actual practise. For example, in Assessment Report 4, the authors "hid the decline" by writing:

       "Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired."

       In the Third Assessment Report, they "hid the decline" by writing:

       "There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible non-climatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a). By contrast, Vaganov et al. (1999) have presented evidence that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season (see Section 2.7.2.2). Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species, although attempts have been made to correct for this effect where appropriate (Mann et al., 1999). Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response."

       So in both, their method of hiding the decline was to explicitly mention it, discuss the potential problems involved, and cite more detailed discussions in the scientific literature. So as regards timelines, they publicly discussed the issue in the two most important policy documents twice before the issue was even brought up by the hacking of the emails. This is not an attempt to save face. This is just a simple policy of publicly discussing the issue. The only issue about "hide the decline" is, why do deniers repeatedly misreport the practice of the scientists involved so as to impute a concealment of data that never happened?
89390. Marcus at 17:33 PM on 9 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       "Every time I have referred someone on the "warming side" being dishonest or ignorant, I get a bunch of moderators nagging? But then again, rant seems to be allowed for the SkS writers." No one accused Christy of ignorance-only dishonesty-a fact backed up by his false claims before the Congressional Committee. You get "nagged" by moderators because your accusations of dishonesty & ignorance are *never* backed up with actual evidence, are usually totally off topic, & are frequently serve no greater benefit than to be downright abusive. I'll tell you something for nothing, though, & that is that the tone of discussion at this site is a great deal less abusive & acrimonious than what I've seen at placed like WUWT-even on a *good* day.
89391. nigelj at 17:19 PM on 9 April 2011
       From The Halls of Montezuma
       To me a better analogy for the effects of CO2 than blood alcohol or tiny doses of poison like strychnine is semiconductors. Tiny impurities and the movement of even just a few electrons can cause large changes in current.
89392. protestant at 16:38 PM on 9 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       "Christy's intellectual dishonesty while testifying before Congress under oath has misinformed our policymakers. Once again, Christy has done his country a disservice through his Congressional testimony." Every time I have referred someone on the "warming side" being dishonest or ignorant, I get a bunch of moderators nagging? But then again, rant seems to be allowed for the SkS writers. Play on your own rules if you want to be even a bit credible.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] As a public figure making on-the-record testimony, Christy subjects himself to scrutiny. Unsubstantiated name-calling, on the other hand, is not acceptable.

       Do not be concerned with the credibility of this site; worry more about your own credibility.

89393. scaddenp at 15:29 PM on 9 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       " The idea they would find it difficult to move their cities say 50 metres away from their current coastline, or build metre high sea walls is ridiculous." And do you suppose that 50m away is just wilderness now? What about what's already there? We can do these things but they are extremely expensive. According to the economic studies done (eg Stern), way more expensive than not letting it happen in the first place. No one proposes that species is going to go extinct because of sealevel rise; what is stated is that sealevel rise will cost us in money and lives, more than cost of curbing emissions. You also seem to think that deltas, plains simply move. Not so. Fundamental to formation of those structures is that sediment budget is such that incoming exceeds erosion. If rate of sealevel rise increase, this equation changes and with it the nature of the coast line. Easily verified by looking at tectonically active coastlines. What you seem to be stating is that sealevel rise isnt a problem for you, but are ignoring those us for whom sealevel rise is already a problem. If you have a cheap solution for our city that ratepayers can afford, then we are all ears.
89394. RyanStarr at 15:25 PM on 9 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Tom I'm sure amongst the sea of skeptics you will find every conceivable view forwarded, a product of the large population. Just as there are believers who fear the earth is at risk of emulating Venus like conditions there are fringe kooks in both camps. However the quote in question refers to what is "often" cited. One doesn't need a PhD to understand a proxy is an approximation (redundant) and in this case it is contradicted by much more reliable instrumental readings. You suggest there are people who believe the declining proxy is accurate and the the instrumental record subject to a conspiracy to distort - do you "often" hear that cited? More often than the former understanding? You cast an even more spurious accusation than the article did and accuse others of disingenuity. Why do skeptics keep referring to attempts to "hide" evidence of flaws in the method? Maybe you should ask the authors of the papers in question why they used that terminology in their own private correspondance, rather odd terminology for people focused on transparency. And do take note of time lines and to what extent those admissions were reported in subsequent citations.
89395. Gilles at 15:21 PM on 9 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       Obviously we have different conceptions of "ad hominem comment", then. concerning the precise topic of the opening post, as far as I can see, it is kind of weather forecast of the next month for arctic ice sea. I do not have definite opinion about weather forecast - and I'm not at all a specialist of ice sea. I just made very general comments about the use of a curve showing a trend, the significance to be given to numerical simulations, etc... that could apply to any field. So concerning arctic sea ice, my opinion is : well, wait and see. As the term is rather short, we'll have soon an opportunity to check the forecasts. I think the main interest of the present comments should be following them up. First we're already on April 9th, so what about the first one ? "The Nares ice bridge will be fragmented, and the ice in Kane Basin will be melting out by April 7th."?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Nobody has said anything about "ad-hominem comments". The comments policy is here, I suggest you read it carefully, "ad-hominem attacks" is only one item on the list, a more relevant item is "off-topic comments". It is unfair to repeatedly disrupt the discussion of the science with incorrect and irrelevant discussion of epistemological issues that have already been answered. If you want to discuss the science relevant to the topic of the article, the moderators would sincerely welcome that.
89396. ranyl at 14:28 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "Ranyl, how would you measure it? If not through accounting? Is your question sensible?" It would take some calculating but not sure why supposed savings on paper need to counted to see if the policy is effective. Did the use of fossil fuels fall in British Columbia fall or not? And then has the amount of imported goods risen or fallen, if it has risen it is a carbon addition if it has fallen there has been a carbon saving, most likely. Add those together and shouldn't it give at least some idea if carbon emissions have fallen or not due to a price for carbon encouraging low carbon use and low carbon products.
89397. Marcus at 14:22 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "Again the cost of the fuel isn't the issue. The issue is that John Hunter needs to analyse his life and find ways to remove £20 in Dec from other outgoings." Well yes, if Mr Hunter got past his *ranting* for 5 seconds & scrounged around for his old gas bills (pre-insulation & pre-thermostat lowering) he'd probably be shocked to find that-even with the $20 tax-he's still probably paying less for his gas bill than he was 10 years ago (excluding inflation of course). I know that's the case with me (though we don't have a carbon tax-yet-in Australia). 12 years ago I was using close to 15kw-h of electricity per day (at an average cost of 12c per kw-h), for an average cost of $54 per month. Now I use between 5 to 6kw-h of electricity per day (at an cost of 20c per kw-h), for an average cost of $33 per month. That means I'm currently saving around $21 per month in *spite* of an 8c per kw-h rise in tariffs in the interim. Of course, as I now am on a 100% green energy scheme-at a whopping 1c per kw-h extra-any future carbon tax will have *no* impact whatsoever on my household energy bills.
89398. Marcus at 14:11 PM on 9 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either." Wow, you really *are* a broken record, aren't you Gilles? Nobody has suggested that a Carbon Tax-alone-will reduce the extraction or consumption of fossil fuels. The point is to make the *alternatives* more attractive by comparison. The BC approach sounds like a good one because, its hoped, the company & income tax cuts can be invested in energy efficiency & renewable energy measures for homes & businesses. Another approach which should be considered is for governments to start phasing out the various subsidies currently enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector, & start re-investing that money into energy efficiency & clean energy measures instead.
89399. Marcus at 13:55 PM on 9 April 2011
       Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
       Also, RSVP, its worth noting that humanity has barely *begun* to tap the planet's clean energy potential. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Tidal & Biomass energy-not to mention emergent technologies like osmotic energy-are all in their relative infancy, with *huge* potential for growth. Unfortunately that growth continues to be stunted by politicians & business people who are *obsessed* with so-called "cheap" fossil fuels. Apparently they're blind to the fact that these fossil fuels would never have *been* cheap without the massive public & private sector support, over more than 50 years, to make them so-a level of support they're determined to deny the Clean Energy sector.
89400. Marcus at 13:51 PM on 9 April 2011
       Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
       "If there isn't even enough clean energy for the people around today, how could there be "more and more" going forward? We seem to have a slight backlog issue." I'll tell you one thing RSVP, whatever challenges are faced by clean energy going forward is going to go *triple* for dirty, *non-renewable* resources like Coal, Oil & Uranium. Even with the current population & current global energy use we don't have enough non-renewable resources to sustain our population into the 22nd century. What do you think will happen in 50 years if we have 9 *billion* people-all trying to achieve the same energy density as is currently enjoyed in the First World? Of course, if we help the developing world to achieve 1st World standards of living in a *clean* & *efficient* manner, then history suggests that this will help to *plateau* the rate of population growth & avoid an epic energy crisis.

Prev  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  1795  Next