Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 Next
Comments 95301 to 95350:
-
RSVP at 20:45 PM on 17 February 2011I want to earn my future, not inherit it
K T, 14 Your statement about growth makes sense to me, although it presupposes that one's wealth necessarily equates with one's carbon (or some other pollution) footprint. Another distinction has to do with local or territorial vs. global pollution. If a pollutant stays in someone's own backyard, I suppose its their problem and right. However, the Earth's atmosphere is shared by the entire plant, so no one should have any more right to pollute it than anyone else. And those that believe CO2, for instance, is a pollutant, are likely to assume their carbon footprint should be no greater than the global average per capita. A corollary being that if the "capita" were smaller, than the footprint could be bigger for everyone. However, in past posts, I have met resistance to the idea, so I must assume theie are big projects in the works (out there) that will make this possible regardless of population. -
Marcus at 20:35 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"I need to know exactly what degrees count and which do not." I've already told you which degrees would count-you're just selectively blind. Given this blindness, how much *real* faith can we place in your claims to have *properly* read through the papers on your list-to confirm that they really do support your claim. "There is nothing objective about what you stated as it requires subjective judgment." What, that's complete & total bunkum. Either a person is working in the relevant field-or was until recently-or they aren't. Can't get more objective than that. Why do you keep falsely claiming that something is subjective, when its *clearly* not? "Do you accept an older skeptic to be more qualified than a younger alarmist? If not then your seniority criteria makes no sense. Do you believe that once someone retires they lose their expertise or credibility?" Like I said, total strawman argument-& pretty typical of the denialist cult. The majority of seasoned scientists are a lot less dogmatic than you seem to believe. They don't go around with signs over their head indicating their leanings &-given the preponderance of non-skeptic climate papers being published in respected journals-I'd argue that any experienced scientists/reviewers who do hold skeptic views are not letting that skepticism sway their objective judgment of whether a paper is *good science*. As I've already said, though, given that most of the original papers warning of climate change were from the 1950's to 1970's, I'd say that this suggests that the majority of experienced climate scientists are *not* skeptics/deniers. As I've also said, my personal experience with my older colleagues suggests very little skepticism of global warming amongst them. "Actually I have been repeatedly told that most of the skeptics are all older and therefore not experts anymore. This is a common argument I have run across. Maybe you are new to the debate?" No, I'm not new to the debate-as I've heard these kinds of denialist "anecdotes" many times before. I've never heard such claims made by non-skeptics, & my own personal experience doesn't back that viewpoint-as I said above. "I thought how peer-review works was well known here?" I do understand how it works-clearly better than you given the ongoing ignorant claims you keep making. "They sometimes publish in these journals to provide a review of the science for the journal's audience. Iron & Steel Technology is a perfect example of this." Total rubbish-for 4 key reasons: (1) The kinds of people who are usually called on to review papers are in great demand-as well as having their own full time jobs to attend to. It is extremely unlikely that said reviewers would have the time to spare to review for every obscure journal out there. (2) Having personally seen the difficulty involved in writing & submitting a paper for publication, I doubt very much that a serious scientist would waste their time trying to get their paper into a journal that wasn't for either (a) general consumption (like Nature or Science) or that will be seen by their peers. (3) I've read papers in many different journals relating to my own field of expertise-& I have *yet* to see anyone trying to publish papers unrelated to my field in those journals-yet so-called "skeptics" seem to be doing it more & more often. (4) If I was trying to find information pertaining to my own field of expertise, I doubt I'd have *any* interest in reading a paper totally unrelated to my field-& I doubt those who read "Iron & Steel Technology" feel any differently. "Beck's paper was peer-reviewed. Your judgment that it does not meet basic standards is an opinion, Beck has argued otherwise. All of your assertions to their peer-review process and all sorts of other allegations are unfounded" Funny how all your unfounded opinions are "facts", but everyone else's well founded facts are just "unfounded opinion. You claim Beck's paper was peer-reviewed-by who? Can you name one chemist, physicist or atmospheric scientist prepared to admit to having peer reviewed this paper? Every scientist I've ever spoken to about it derides it loudly as not even meeting the basic criteria for good scientific method. Beck's sampling methods were downright awful, with error bars significantly larger than his averages-yet still he had the audacity to claim that his results were better than those obtained from the most pristine atmospheric samples available, & measured using the most sensitive measuring equipment currently available. That's not *opinion*, that is *fact*-something you & your denialist mates seem to know nothing about. "Your actions demonstrate that the list is not useless but very problematic for you. " Hardly. I find your list-& the time you waste defending it-absolutely chuckle worthy. I've really enjoyed exposing you as the fraud you are, & equally enjoyed watching you frequently shoot yourself in the foot, by exposing your pseudo-religious approach to so-called skepticism. Plus, I get huge amounts of enjoyment out of baiting you & watching you froth at the mouth. That said, even my enjoyment has run dry. I believe I've already done my bit in exposing you & your denialist mates for the cultists you are, & I think I've done my bit in tearing your precious list to shreds. I will leave it to the others to keep up the pressure on your sham list. I will watch with interest though, just from the sidelines. -
scaddenp at 19:51 PM on 17 February 2011Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
All the of the global temperature metrics, GISS, UAH, HadCrut etc say that temperature rises are NOT being balanced out, and overall temperatures are rising. As to whether current sea-level rises matches the current level of ice loss, the water budget seems to be closed quite well. eg Willis -
Philippe Chantreau at 19:46 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Talking about logical fallacy, I ignored this question of yours, since it was logically at odds with the rest of your argument: "So a scientist who publishes one breakthrough paper and wins a Nobel Prize would not be considered an expert while someone who published 300 mediocre papers would be?" According to yourself, there is no objective determination of what a mediocre paper is, so I was not sure what the question meant. Plus, it seems to be a rather inane question and it is, in fact, addressed by my relativity example as far as I can tell. It's hard to tell sometimes. You have slipped quite a bit on coherence. It was fun. As these remaining British players of spoof say: Thank you, gentlemen, for the game... -
Philippe Chantreau at 19:32 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"You failed to answer any of my questions" Nonsense. I've answered all of them. That you failed to understand the answers is not a big concern of mine. However, it seems to indicate that your reading comprehension may be impaired. Perhaps that's the problem on your side of the debate. That would explain also why you thought that the Mavromichalaki paper in any way supported your "skepticism." Or maybe you did not even read the abstract and just posted it on your list because it said cosmic rays somewhere. Which is it? As far as how to examine a researcher's record of publication, the fact that you are asking how to do it, while not long ago you were lecturing others on Google Scholar, is downright comical. And you talk about beating chests. That is really funny. You've given every indication that you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if your life depended on it. The Beck paper used measurements of CO2 taken in the middle of highly concentrated active sources of CO2 and used it as if it were well mixed. If you don't see the logical fallacy in that, there is no hope for you. That the paper was peer-reviewed at E&E says everything one needs to know on the standards of that journal. There is nothing subjective about it. Beck used to try to bamboozle people with a graph that had a truncated x axis so that it would simulate periodicity where there was none. Oops, sorry, that's not a logical fallacy, that's deception. Now you may not be satisfied with my answers to your questions but I did make some effort to answer them. You, on the other hand have not even attempted to answer mine. Where in the Mavromichalaki paper is there anything said by the authors that support your AGW alarm skepticism? How are conference proceedings peer-reviewed? -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:17 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@502 >"You did not check very well, # 398" > >>"just because solar forcing has been the dominant driver of >>paleoclimate does not mean that the current warming is >>non-anthropogenic." > >It supports skepticism that CO2 is a primary driver of the current >climate. " Sorry that is just restating your assertion and ignoring the point being made, that it is a logical error to suppose that solar forcing being dominant in paleoclimate means it is dominant now. We have observations of solar activity and it is too weak and in the wrong direction to be the cause of the observed warming. Hence if you think that paper supports skepticism you are unaware of what the data actually say. >>"If you don't have the scientific background to judge the >>difference then you ought not to compile a list and should leave >>it to someone who does, for the reasons I gave." > >The authors of the papers in question have the scientific >background and disagree. I am talking about your ability to determine whether the papers support skepticism and hence belong in the list. Not all of the papers explicitly state that the authors consider the paper to support skepticism, so you can't use their judgment by proxy. Especially since a couple of authors have told you that they don't think their papers belong in the list. >>"That is a non-sensical requirement. Journals generally only >>retract papers becuase of plagiarism or scientific fraud etc. I >>don't recall ever seeing a paper retracted simply because it was >>wrong. If that was general practice it would be very common." > >I will also remove papers if the author admits the whole paper (not >part of it) was wrong. Again that is a non-sensical criterion. Very few papers are ever utterly wrong. For instance Essenhigh's computes the residence time correctly in his paper, it is only the conclusion (that a short residence time means the rise in CO2 is non-anthropogenic) that is completely wrong. >>"Not all the papers on your list are dud," > >Then please point out a paper from the list that you agree with and >defend it when it is criticized here. I notice you didn't apologise for your misrepresentation of my position there. for examples, try: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038082.shtml Which looks O.K. from the abstract. If I notice papers I agree with being criticised, then I am happy to defend them. However given that you appear impervious to attempts to help you improve your list, there isn't much point any of us discussing it with you is there? -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:53 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
poptech@536 Quality is indeed subjective, but that doesn't mean it isn't important. It is a shame that you can't take advice from those, such as myself, that are generally in favour of a well curated list of papers supporting a skeptical stance. -
scaddenp at 17:50 PM on 17 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Acorn1 - perhaps look at: CO2 is plant food and Its not bad. I don't know of any science that supposes humans as a species is going to die out. However, climate change that is too fast will be seriously bad for many individuals of the species. Its about the rate of change not about what's an optimal temperature. Have a look at the scenarios of what 2100 could look like and think about whether this seems to good thing, but its best to do so on the appropriate thread rather than throwing a bunch of skeptic talking points into a single post. -
Utahn at 17:22 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT: "Since it is subjective I can choose whether I consider it "strong evidence" or not." And yet you choose based not on the quality of the papers, but on the number of them, as you stated above you would consider 850 2nd hand smoke articles "strong evidence" sight unseen. The point of this post is that it's unwise to use numbers to decide the strength of evidence, when the numbers have no context(i.e. the denominator). If someone precisely identified 1000 peer reviewed articles to be in the world literature on global warming, your 850 would seem like strong support of the skeptical position, if someone precisely identified 1 million peer reviewed articles on global warming your 850 would seem very weak evidence against the consensus, yet you judge the 850 to be strong evidence without any notion or attempt to understand which denominator is closer to true... -
Marcus at 17:05 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Philippe Chantreau, "Here is an example for you..." You failed to answer any of my questions." Wrong again PT-you're getting good at this. Philippe actually *did* answer your questions. Just because you didn't get the reply you were hoping for, doesn't mean the answer wasn't provided. Indeed, both of us have shown you how the peer review process is *very* objective. Not perfect, perhaps, but its worked perfectly well for decades-especially in the more respected journals. As a scientist, I also know that there are journals that have lower standards of peer review than others-as I've seen many people get their papers knocked back by Science or Nature, only to have them published in some obscure journal desperate for papers to publish. Of course, as you're completely ignorant of how science works, I wouldn't expect you to know that! -
Marcus at 17:01 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Ok then give me the objective procedure to determine if someone is "qualified". What am I looking for? What specific degrees?" Oh dear, do I *really* have to walk you through this? Are you really that thick PT....oops, I already know the answer to this. Of course they have to have degrees relevant to the specific field-you can't ask someone with a medical degree to review a paper on horticulture. In climate science, a degree in atmospheric physics, geology, geography or biology is a good start-multiple degrees certainly help. "So the minute someone retires they lose all previous knowledge and cease being an expert?" Nope, that's not what I said-stop misusing people's words, given how much you claim to hate other people misrepresenting you. I meant that someone should have been working in the relevant field-not necessarily at that given moment. Obviously, though, the longer a person is out of a relevant field, the less likely they are to be qualified to review a paper that might contain new knowledge or procedures. Again, very objective. "So the older skeptics are more qualified than the younger alarmists?" Oh, your ignorance is bordering on life-threatening PT. Some of the best papers predicting anthropogenic warming actually come from 30-50 years ago, from people who'd now be retired. The fact is that there is *no* correlation between age & skepticism-so your argument is a total strawman. Obviously though, age also means *nothing* unless backed up by relevant experience-as I've already stated. "But that is not how peer-review works. Regardless of the journal the reviewers would be from the appropriate field." So you claim, but can you *prove* it? If what you claim is true, then why would scientists be publishing in journals utterly unrelated to their field or-in some cases-totally non-science based journals? Hardly the best way to get recognized or cited by other authors. No, the only answer that makes sense is that they publish in obscure journals to avoid proper scrutiny of their work. "This is utterly false as both adhere to scholarly peer-review standards." Incorrect-the existence of papers like those by Beck is *proof* that basic standards are not important to these journals, only telling its readership what they want to hear. Of course, I'd be willing to entertain *proof* to the contrary-but all we have from you so far are utterly unfounded assertions as to the "high quality" of their peer review process. So, once again PT you've displayed your unfailing ability to epically *fail*. I do notice, though, that your defense is getting weaker & weaker with each repetition. Don't you get *bored* of putting so much effort into misleading others PT? Don't you have better things to do with your life than create useless lists? -
Marcus at 16:12 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Incorrect, you have simply provided more subjective criteria." Wow, you really have no *clue*, do you Poptech? Its hardly subjective criteria. For starters, the person in question most be *qualified* in the field they're reviewing-nothing subjective about that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise. Secondly, they most be currently working in an appropriate field-again, nothing subjective about that. Thirdly, their is seniority-another objective criteria-the longer a person has worked in a relevant field, the more likely they are to be qualified to review papers in said field. Fourth is track record-slightly subjective but, as this usually ties strongly into the first 3 criteria, it usually ends up being highly objective-namely that a person who has worked a long time in the relevant field will almost *always* have a good track record-as determined by publications &/or the respect of other scientists in that field. This is why we take issue with such a large number of the papers you use to pad your list-many of them are published in obscure journals utterly unrelated to climate science-& so reviewers from said journal are unlikely to properly understand the subject they're reviewing. With E&E & Cato, it's simply a question of the fact that they don't *care* whether the paper meets the basic standards of the Scientific Method-just as long as its pushing their ideology forward. So you see that, as with everything else you've claimed on this site, you're completely wrong about this too-& have simply reiterated your complete ignorance of how science works. However, as you're a card-carrying member of the Denialist Cult, a knowledge of scientific procedure would be viewed more as a negative than as a positive. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:12 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Did you find any excerpt in the Mavromichalaki paper that supports AGW alarm skepticism? How are conference proceedings peer-reviewed exactly? -
SoundOff at 16:07 PM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Alex, just correct to 0.8 deg C per W/m^2 of forcing and I think you will have it about right. -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:01 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I understand that solid reasoning abilities could appear to you as subjective. It would explain a lot. Here is an example for you. As a flight instructor I used to test the reasoning abilities of my students by asking them to describe why the maneuvering speed (Va) of an airplane increases when the total weight of the airplane increases, which is counterintuitive. I could judge very objectively their reasoning ability as it pertained to principles of flight by their answer. Why do you think that it's so difficult? Anyone who knows their stuff can do the same. If you don't know how to examine a researcher's track record of publications, perhaps you should hold back on the Google Scholar pontification. Important publications are widely cited and give rise to numerous other papers (they're called seminal papers for a reason). Seminal papers advance knowledge any way you look at it. You're a stickler for words with everybody but yourself. I did not say that Einstein would not be considered worthy of reviewing papers. I said he wouldn't have been the top choice on Quantum. He certainly would have been on Relativity. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:27 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Re: Ice sheets and floating This is probably a good time to add some clarity to the mechanisms behind what happens at the transition between a "stable" grounded ice sheets, ice shelves and sea ice. The reality is that ice is a viscous fluid and "flows" from higher to lower altitudes. James describes ice shelves and sea ice in the post at top. When a "grounded" ice sheet meets the sea it will either unground and become an ice tongue/ice shelf, or it will calve. Ice tongues/shelves act as buttresses, slowing the advance of the ice sheet towards the sea. When an ice sheet no longer has this protective formation, gravity (because gravity is a you-know-what) is able to exert its full effects and the speed of flow nearest the sea increases. This downhill delta/vector is then propagated "upglacier" until a new dynamic equilibrium (in terms of rate of loss) is reached. The ice edge at the sea:ice junction calves, sometimes steadily, sometimes catastrophically (see video at bottom of this comment). The faster the ice sheet moves downhill, the faster the calving rate. This is the Jakobshavn Effect. Enough basal lubrication (the Zwally Effect) can increase this rate of downhill flow somewhat, but the primary mechanism of transport is the Jacobshavn Effect. At this point it's the sheer scale of the ice sheet that makes it difficult to understand why, if the basal melt causes an ungrounding of the ice sheet leading edge, why the whole sucker doesn't just pop up like a cork? Unlike a floating iceberg, where 90% of the berg is below the water line, on the ice sheets the majority of the ice is above sea level, especially at the 20th Century terminus points. If the calving front retreats landward enough, the basal edge is in much deeper water. So eventually you might see big bergs bobbing up, but in the interim (at least the next 20 years or so, even for the WAIS) thinning & outlet transport will rule the day. This doesn't mean that existing & future calving events are not and will not be spectacular, because they are. Check this out (pay special attention to the 12:45-13:05, 15:20-16:00 and 16:05-17:00 segments): Hope this is more clear than mud, The Yooper -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:08 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
It is actually that simple. How is a reviewer determined to be qualified? by having demonstrated the ability to advance knowledge in the field under study. That is done through intimate familiarity with the technical aspects, solid reasoning abilities, etc, all demonstrated by their track record of publications. How is it determined they publish regularly? They have a track record of publications. Why is someone who publishes in the field irregularly not considered an expert? Because if they do not publish regularly, they're less likely to have kept up some of the qualities mentioned above. Although Eisntein did understand Quantum theory, he was not an expert in it. The go-to guys were Bohr or Von Neuman. It does not change that Einstein understood it well. He also published in it but not so regularly. Nothing wrong with that. But he wouldn't have been the top choice as a reviewer of Quantum Theory papers. How is someone's reputation determined? By their track record of publications. By the relative importance of their publications, or how much they advance knowledge in their field. Breakthroughs are a good reputation builder. For instance, even if Einstein had published only the Special and General Relativity papers, he would have got quite a reputation. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:49 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
You don't understand neither the cosmic ray theory nor the Mavromichalaki paper. This is the subject of the Mavromichalaki paper, summarized in the last sentence of the abstract: "This interpretation is explained in terms of different contributions of convection, diffusion and drift mechanisms to the whole modulation process influencing cosmic-ray transport in the heliosphere." Convection, diffusion and drift all apply to solar processes. The paper treats of how variations in the Sun's magnetic field influence the cosmic ray flux. The interrelation between solar activity and cosmic rays is well known and not in dispute. This paper studies it from the point of view of magnetic activity (Hale cycle). It has absolutely nothing to do with any hypothesis on the effect of cosmic rays on Earth' weather. Nothing. Find one quote in that paper that can support skepticism of AGW alarm and I'll be glad to acknowledge it. If you can't you should take the paper out of the list. Hint: it has to be something that is actually said in the paper, by the authors. You know, just like the conclusion of a paper should be supported by the data and anaysis presented. The hypothesis of cosmic ray induced cloud formation is discussed elsewhere and further mention should be brought to the appropriate thread. Nonetheless, this hypothesis (callig it a theory is a stretch since it has no plausible physical mechanism) relies on dubious correlation. Everyone who has examined that correlation closely enough has seen it behave in quantum ways: when you look too close, it disppears. No physical mechanism for growing the ionized particles to CCN size has yet been postulated. The CERN CLOUD experiment has yielded nothing truly substantial, except revelations on the shortcomings of the experimental design. -
Acorn1 at 14:47 PM on 17 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Sir: Homo s. has had his brain cage increase from 500cc to 1700cc over the short period of 3million years. He will be able to endure just about anything nature throws at him at the year 2100. Why link temperature and atmos CO2 and end there? We know plants and animals can cope better at "high" temperatures, and we know higher CO2 is supportive of more plants. (World food sources have increased, relative to all else,in the last 60 years) Homo S. died down to (near extinction?) about a mear 2000 during the last ice age. So why not get this discussion around to what's the best of both? Instead of they're both bad...which seems to be the thread. acorn1Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You're relatively new here, so let me take a moment to welcome you & to give you a quick tour and idea of how things work best here. We encourage you to read the Newcomers-Start-Here post, followed by the Big-Picture post, so you can get a synopsis of what's going on. I also recommend you watch this video on why CO2 is the Control Knob of temperatures. When you have questions, use the Search function in the upper left corner of every page to find out if there's an answer ready-made for you in the form of a blog post investigating that (chances are there is). Questions are to be posed on those threaded posts. If you still have questions, find the most appropriate post & ask it there. Someone will get back to you. Lastly, keep the Comments Policy in mind when formulating your questions (remember to use the Preview function to ensure readability). Thanks! -
muoncounter at 14:39 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech "these support the galactic and cosmic ray theories of climate change," So the proof: You really either don't read the papers, don't know what it is you read or simply don't care. The first two papers deal only with change on the scale of millions of years due to solar system motion through the galaxy. That is NOT any known form of 'skepticism' of recent anthropogenic climate change. "If you understood the cosmic ray theory," You're the away team on that turf (perhaps you don't know what muons are and why they are counted). Fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field and the resultant modulation of earth surface CR flux are well-researched. However, this paper does not link this with clouds or climate in any way, nor does it support any skeptical argument regarding such unproven hypotheses. So Poptech admits his hypocrisy: game, set and match. We're done here (except I just found a few more on the list that don't do what you say).Moderator Response: [DB] He don't know you very well, do he? -
Marcus at 14:38 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"f you understood the cosmic ray theory, it is that the fluctuating of suns magnetic field relates to the fluctuation in cosmic ray intensity that controls cloud cover on earth. This paper supports his theory." Yep, we've done Cosmic Rays to death here PT, & the suggestion is that-if anything-current interactions between solar activity & Cosmic Rays should be causing a cooling trend right now-i.e. increasing cloud cover due to increasing exposure to cosmic rays. As has already been pointed out, a paper that shows factors *other* than CO2 have caused climate change in the deep dark past do *not* strengthen the case for CO2 not playing a role in current climate change. That's the worst, weakest kind of circumstantial evidence imaginable &-were to to present that in a court of law-would see your case summarily thrown out. Once again, PT, you prove that *science* is not your strong suit- ( -Snip- ).Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please, keep it civil. -
kdkd at 14:17 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech #518 Woah dude - those are some tenuous lines of evidence you've got going there. Certainly not enough to falsify the large coherent body of knowledge that's amassed showing the important role of CO2 in anthropogenic climate change. In fact I would imagine that the authors of these publications would be horrified to see that you're misusing their work in this way. In your own mind this material may support your view. From a more objective position, and with more scientific training than you appear to have they certainly do not. -
Riduna at 13:52 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Bern @ 42 ... We don't even have to melt the ice to see *any* sea level rise - it just has to start floating That is exactly the point I make at 39. It seems to me that the real threat to sea level is the potential for WAIS to loose its footing on the seabed. -
Marcus at 13:43 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"If you don't understand that then you're probably not qualifed to comment on science." I think we've established that fact multiple times over Phillipe. Indeed, his pseudo-religious approach to science makes me think that he's not overly qualified to work in IT either. I mean, does he think the quality of computer code can be "subjective"-tell that to the guy whose software crashes because he put a colon where a comma should have been!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Poptech's qualifications in his day job are not to be considered as "fair game" for discussion and are off-topic. -
Bern at 13:40 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
I think also a few people have tried to point out that we don't have to melt all the ice before we see significant sea level rise. We don't even have to melt the ice to see *any* sea level rise - it just has to start floating, where it's presently sitting on the seabed. It can do this by dynamically thinning to the point where it starts floating, which can also happen a long, long time before it actually melts. That Hansen paper Daniel Bailey referenced way back at comment #8 also makes the point that, once sea level rise reaches a rate of about a metre per decade, that we will start to see significant negative feedback from all those chunks of ice floating around in the oceans. That's pretty cold comfort, though (no pun intended!) - 1 metre per decade will be disastrous, as will the cumulative rise before we get to that point. BTW, for some sea level rise maps of selected areas of Australia, check out this site. It only has 0.5, 0.8, and 1.1m scenarios, but it's a starting point.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] fixed link -
Marcus at 13:39 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Also, going back to an earlier matter. MacLeans paper didn't just receive *criticism*, it was shown to complete & total *junk*. I mean, come on, the guy spliced together the temp. anomalies for weather balloons & satellites, without telling readers he'd done it, & using the same anomaly values-even though said values were based off completely different baselines-all in order to *hide* the increase in temperatures. By having that trick exposed, it rendered the rest of his entire paper totally null & void (his attempt to link ENSO to recent global warming relied entirely on that temperature graph). Now, if a Climate Scientist were to do that in order to advance the AGW theory, denialists like yourself would be screaming in faux outrage, yet you not only have no criticism for MacLean's dodgy work, you're quite happy to retain it in your list-simply because it pads it out that little bit more. -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:38 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
E&E is listed as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal in some databases. It also does have an agenda. That agenda has been claimed vigorously by Sonia Boehmer- Christansen, who is intimately involved in the development of that "publication." That you deny this fact does not make it go away, it only indicates how ready you are to twist reality in order to fit your strange world view. The quality of the work in E&E is miserable. Quality in science publication is not subjective. It is dependent on the rigor in analysis, the care in choice of data and their treatment, the coherence in the reasoning, and how the conclusion is supported. If you don't understand that then you're probably not qualifed to comment on science. Peer-review in science is meant to guarantee a minimumn level of quality. If a publication can not achieve that minimum level, it has a serious problem. When the editorial board headed by Von Storch understood how much of a problem they had with the Soon&Baliunas paper, they all resigned. That was the right thing to do and indicates that they all had an idea of what objective level of quality should be present in their journal. You can deny that all you want, it will only demonstrate how delusional you are willing to be. The Beck piece was so flawed that it did not deserve any consideration. E&E decided to publish it. Other pieces with very low quality have appeared there. It makes it a low quality journal that does not deserve attention. We're not just talking about somebody who is wrong here; the Beck piece was so bad that it wasn't even wrong, it was a travesty. Anyone peering through that paper will realize as much, that is not subjective. You have not irrefutably deomstrated anything except a somewhat unique perception of reality. The denominator can be estimated with a range, the lower end of which, for science papers only, still dwarfs your ridiculous little list, which is loaded with law articles, obscure policy publications, think tank papers and all sorts of junk. Everyone can see why you are trying so hard to argue about the subjectivity of quality. As for CATO, it is a political think tank. Their journal's only function is to foster the organization's idelology. That makes it worthless as a source of information, regardless of how it is listed in databases. I repeat my question: How does the Mavromichalaki et al paper support AGW alarm skepticism? If it does not, it must be removed from the list. And how are conference proceedings peer-reviewed? -
Marcus at 13:34 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Incorrect, Iron & Steel Technology is a peer-reviewed trade journal (ISSN: 1547-0423)" Yes, & that makes them experts in global warming how exactly? You see, PT, you do a better job than we do of showing just how worthless your list really is-by showing that many of these skeptic viewpoints are published in obscure journals whose reviewers don't know the subject matter well enough to decide whether it has actual merit (indeed, it reads more like a page filler for the journal). The same goes for Journals of Law-I might go to them for peer-reviewed opinion on purely legal matters, but I do *not* expect them to know about Global Warming. Of course, if the science of the skeptics was so strong-*objectively speaking*-then the authors of these papers wouldn't need to seek out such obscure journals just to get their work published (oh, & please spare us another rant about some kind of "conspiracy" to keep skeptics out of mainstream journals, 'cause that won't wash here). -
Marcus at 13:29 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Since it is subjective I can choose whether I consider it "strong evidence" or not. Just like you have with my list." No matter how often you make this false claim, PT, "belief" & "subjectivity" don't cut it in the world of science. In that world, nothing but objective evidence & facts will do the trick. I'd suggest you'd do better in Philosophy or even Religion with that approach-& we all know that Denialism is pretty much a religion-with Monckton, Plimer & Inhofe as its High Priests. Clearly, though, Poptech sees himself as an aspirant for the top job. -
Marcus at 13:19 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"It supports skepticism that CO2 is a primary driver of the current climate." That is the biggest load of ignorant hokum I've ever heard. That claim is as ludicrous as saying "forest fires have largely been caused by lightening strikes in the past, therefore it supports skepticism of arson". Total & utter *hogwash*-but still pretty much what I've come to expect of Denialists like yourself. To claim that such things *strengthen* your argument just prove how utterly deluded you are! -
Marcus at 13:16 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Incorrect, I have irrefutably demonstrated that his denominator is based on erroneous results." Nope, only in your own mind-& in the Denialist Universe you inhabit. Out here in the real world, you've still largely missed the point "That is because it is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal." Cato Journal, like E&E, has *proven* low standards when it comes to the publication of papers that "tow the party line"-due to their funding links with the Coal & Oil industries (you don't bite the hand that feeds you). Good & Bad are definitely *not* a subjective terms either-as many fail the basic evidence test that should be the foundation of any published paper. Many papers published in E&E fail Science 101, yet still get published as long as they say "Climate Change isn't real". If you're going to rely on relatively obscure journals-with poor Peer Review Standards & a clear ideological agenda-just so you can pad the list out a little bit more, then it doesn't say much for the strength of your list. -
muoncounter at 13:13 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter: "ask how long the ice will last. Please." We have, several times. See the thread on Ice free Arctic, among others. I don't understand why you seem to be insisting that Arctic ice isn't in jeopardy. You've agreed that the Arctic is warming precipitously and that Arctic ice melt is increasing. There's no need for any specific heat calculation; the figures in the ice-free thread -- and several other threads on the same topic -- show very clearly how long the ice will last. The Flanner thread and papers linked on that thread amplify this topic with the increase in heat absorption of open Arctic waters vs. ice. -
Peter Offenhartz at 13:08 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Please, please, no more doomesday scenarios! Here's the math that no one will do: The total ice volume is about 40 x 10^6 GT. The rate of melting is currently well under 1000 GT per year, or 0.001 x 10^6 GT/yr. (I hope this time I've done the math correctly!) -
angliss at 13:03 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Wow. 509 comments. I personally recommend to everyone still debating Poptech take leave of the argument - you have better things to do with your time, and Poptech simply isn't worth your effort any more. If he ever was.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Worthy advice all should heed. -
muoncounter at 13:00 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT: "Papers are not included or removed from the list based on .. if they ... support skepticism of AGW alarm." Then by your own words, you must remove the three papers discussed here, as they do not support 'skepticism' in any way whatsoever. Failure to do this is admission of total and complete hypocrisy. -
RickG at 12:50 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @ 501: Please provide the objective method to determine if someone is a "climate scientist". Its very simple. A qualified peer reviewer is one who publishes regularly in the field he is reviewing (climate science) with a reputation of scholarly works to his/her credit that stand the test of time. Most of the journals you list do not meet that criteria. -
mclamb6 at 12:39 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech at 503: The authors of the papers in question have the scientific background and disagree. Except when they don't, such as Pielke, in which case you ignore them in favor of your own "context". -
mclamb6 at 12:38 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
You do realize that with your ridiculous mantra that nearly everything is "subjective", you are basically arguing for scientific nihilism. And why should anyone respond to any of your inquiries, when your response will simply be "I disagree" or "Incorrect"? -
Riduna at 12:36 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
It is important to distinguish between the East (EAIS) and West (WAIS) ice sheets, the latter lying to the west of the Trans-Antarctic Mountains. The EAIS is a land based ice sheet loosing mass in a similar way to the Greenland ice sheet. The WAIS covers the land of a far-flung archipelago but is predominantly a marine ice sheet resting on the seabed. The WAIS is therefore far more susceptible to melting by coming into contact with the warming waters of the Southern Ocean and warmer currents flowing directly on to the ice from equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean. This is why it is now loosing ice at a rate almost three times greater (132 Gt/annum) than the much larger EAIS (54 Gt/annum). Contact of warmer seawater with the WAIS face rising from the seabed makes it particularly vulnerable (far more so than EAIS or Greenland) to erosion of its footing. Were this to occur, large areas of the marine ice shelf could, in a relatively short time, loose contact with the seabed and become floating ice. This would result in more rapid sea level rise than present levels of ice loss from land based ice sheets. Sorry if this sounds nit-picking. -
Berényi Péter at 12:34 PM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
OK, let's have a look at it. First of all Stefan–Boltzmann law is I = ε·σ·T04 (1) where I is power flux (W/m2), ε is emissivity (a number between 0 and 1), σ = 5.67×10-8 Wm-2K-4 is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and T0 is surface temperature. Now, effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (-18°C) while its average surface temperature is 288 K (15°C). I = σ·Teff4 (2) From (1) and (2) for its equilibrium effective emissivity we get ε0 = (Teff/T0)4 ~ 0.61 (3) If some more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, effective emissivity is decreasing, so it should be compensated for increasing surface temperature to preserve radiative balance. I0 = ε0·σ·T04 = (ε0-Δε)·σ·(T0+ΔT)4 (4) From (4) we get Δε = 4·ε0/T0·ΔT (5) whenever ΔT is small compared to T0. On the other hand we have ΔT = λ·5.35·log(C/C0) (6) as above, where λ is the equilibrium climate sensitivity while C and C0 are the current and preindustrial CO2 concentrations (measured in ppmv) respectively. From (5) and (6) we have the effective emissivity anomaly as a function of climate sensitivity and CO2 concentration. Δε = λ·21.4·ε0/T0·log(C/C0) (7) Forcing (relative to preindustrial CO2 level) due to CO2 induced effective emissivity anomaly is ΔF = λ·21.4·ε0·σ·T03·log(C/C0) (8) As a 1 W/m2 radiative imbalance implies a monthly heat accumulation of 0.134×1022 J in the climate system, monthly heat accumulation due to CO2 forcing is ΔQmonth = λ·2.87×1022·ε0·σ·T03·log(Cmonth/C0) (9) We have monthly data (some interpolated) for atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii since March, 1958. In (9) λ is unknown, but all the other terms are given. Therefore it makes sense to define Dmonth = 2.87×1022·ε0·σ·T03·log(Cmonth/C0) (10) ΔQmonth = λ·Dmonth (11) As vector D is given (λ is an unknown constant), we can write ΔQ = λ·D (12) Of course actual heat gain is less than that. The surface is also warming and radiative losses increase with the fourth power of temperature. It's easy to verify that heat flux anomaly due to a temperature anomaly ΔT is ΔI = 4·ε0·σ·T03·ΔT (13) Fortunately we also have average surface temperature anomalies at NASA GISS (from January, 1880). Using the same conversion as above, we can define R, monthly heat loss due to a temperature anomaly as ΔRmonth = 0.536×1022·ε0·σ·T03·ΔTmonth (14) Heat retained by the greenhouse effect either goes to space or is sequestered into the ocean. Fortunately we also have some data regarding OHC (Ocean Heat Content). It is only the heat content of the upper 700 m, but as it is reasonably sure change of heat content of the entire climate system is proportional to this quantity, let the coefficient be μ. Therefore we have vector S, although this one is only with a quarter year resolution. Of course we can resample D and R to match it. Due to unknown offsets the balance is still not perfect, there is also an unknown linear function of time, so we can write λ·D - R - μ·S = α·t + β (15) where t is time, α and β constants. It is only true as far as ASR (absorbed Shortwave Radiation) is constant. Of course it is not, but if it has no trend, it has no influence on climate sensitivity calculations. So the next task is to choose λ, μ, α and β that minimizes (λD-μS-αt-β-R)2. It is basically a system of linear equations with four unknowns and if solved, it comes out as λ = 0.64. This climate sensitivity corresponds to 2.37°C equilibrium warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration. However, μ = 0.08 is deep below 1, which is impossible. It would mean all the heat stored in the climate system is only 8% of what is found in the upper 700 m of oceans. Not only there is no missing heat, but a lot of excess heat is measured. Therefore OHC before mid 2003 (large scale deployment of ARGO floats) is almost certainly mismeasured and the flat curve seen since is typical of the entire epoch. It means heat exchange between the atmosphere and ocean is either very slow or the surface warming is actually much less than measured. λ is sensitive to surface temperatures (not so much to OHC), so if there is an UHI effect of about 0.25/doubling of local population density even in rural areas, equilibrium climate sensitivity is less than 0.5. It would mean the pipeline is practically empty, which is consistent with the low effective heat capacity or very long response time of oceans found above (I mean long, compared to the half century for which we have reliable CO2 data). If soot is also considered, it leaves even less room for a high value of λ, as it increases ASR and does have a trend. -
PT_Goodman at 12:21 PM on 17 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Isn't the percentage of CO2 retained in the atmosphere increasing. I took the NOAA MLO CO2 annual increments from 1959 to 2010, calculated the percentage change for each year from 1960 to 2010, graphed that, and found that percentage of CO2 retained in the atmosphere (given here as 43%) is generally increasing during that period. Does this mean that the ocean and land CO2 sinks are becoming less effective?Moderator Response: [DB] Perhaps I've missed it, but I have not seen anything conclusive yet (there is some natural variability in the uptakes). It is indeed being studied closely, for that event is what some models have indicated in a Business-As-Usual situation. -
michael sweet at 12:18 PM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter, It is not necessary for all the ice to melt (that would raise sea level about 75 meters) for it to be a disaster. If Greenland alone melted it would raise sea level 7 meters and put millions of people out of their homes. If half the ice in Greenland melted much of the sea level rise would occur since the bowl in the middle of the island would need to still be full of ice. That would require 0.1C of ocean heat, which has already occured. If you assume a 10 year doubling time for ice melt it is 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100. That would put Miami and 8 million other people out of their homes in Florida alone. For me that is a disaster. How much sea level rise do you need for it to count as a disaster? Of course the data indicates a doubling time of around 6 years at present. How do you feel about that for the next 50 years? -
RickG at 12:16 PM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
497 Poptech: Peer-Reviewed: (Defined) of or being scientific or scholarly writing or research that has undergone evaluation by other experts in the field to judge if it merits publication. With that definition perhaps your tally of 850 should go to zero. How many of those papers are peer reviewed by actual publishing climate scientists? You know, actual experts in the field. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:50 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Interesting to note that in Poptech's first post on this article he states... " Simply searching for phrases in Google Scholar will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 21,000 from the Guardian, 84,000 from Newsweek and 140,000 from the New York Times. " I tested this. Searching the phrase "climate change" turns up: NYT... Zero articles Newsweek... Seven articles Guardian.... Three articles The only way you get the numbers he states is to leave word or phrase field blank. What were his words? Oh yeah... "Epic fail." -
Alex C at 11:45 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Huh, not sure why I said 0.8W/m^2. Perhaps I was thinking of the temperature rise realized currently, or mixed up the forcing expected from modern CO2 levels which is 1.8W/m^2..... From the "CO2 Effect is Weak" argument the forcing from a doubling of CO2 (climate sensitivity) is 3.7 W/m^2. dF = 5.35ln(C/C_i); 5.35ln(2) = 3.7 The forcing during the MWP was, again, much lower. Sorry about the confusion, hope that clarified some. -
Alex C at 11:37 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Not to imply that the MWP was due to CO2 - just trying to provide something to compare the forcing of that time period to. If I'm not mistaken, the climate sensitivity would be about 0.8 W/m^2, and the forcing during the MWP was about 0.3 W/m^2. In other words, it does not measure up to the customary representation of climate sensitivity. -
Alex C at 11:35 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
pbjamm: mozart is referring to Figures 1 and 2, which are not labeled in-figure for the temperature scale (though it is stated below that the tick marks are separated by a degree Celsius, in the Figure 2 description - I think mozart was aware of this). There are no intermediate ticks, so it's hard to quantify very accurately just by looking at it. But to explain the point he brought up, sort of repeating Dana's response, the climate sensitivity is usually represented as a temperature response to a doubling of CO2. CO2 levels were most certainly not double 280ppmv for any extended period of time during the MWP, so the temperature rise would not have gone up because of them - also, now more along the lines of what Dana said, the overall forcing change during that time period was not particularly high, when compared with the amount expected from a doubling of CO2. -
adelady at 10:39 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Resources running out? Long before they 'run out' there would be clear signals of problems. All you need to do is look at birthrate changes during the great depression. The birthrate dropped below replacement rate in the USA and several other developed countries. I'm very much afraid that my preferred population strategy - education of girls and women - may well be overtaken by events. The nastier economic and social issues, the famines that Ann referred to combined with the dislocations from advancing high tides and salinity of groundwaters will severely impact family formation and birthrates. Education of women and girls is still a good strategy, but it may not be the peaceful, gradual effect that I'd prefer on population numbers. -
Bibliovermis at 10:24 AM on 17 February 2011It warmed just as fast in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940
expect a bigger change between the second and third rates if we'd added something to this experiment Ceteris paribus. ("All other things being equal or held constant.") Solar activity was not identical so such a direct comparison is not applicable. Solar activity was decreasing during the period 1975-2005 and increasing during the period 1910-1940, except 1920-1930 (roughly rounded). Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? -
WSteven at 10:12 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
@dana1981: Okay, point 1 I think I did pick up on somewhat. Points 2 and 3 I should have picked up on as on rereading the article they were actually fairly explicit. That's what I get for trying to carefully read an article when I'm busy. :-) Thanks for clarifying. @NewYorkJ: I've actually read that article. I'll probably make a point or reading it again plus the links in Dana's article.
Prev 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 Next
