Recent Comments

Prev  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  Next

Comments 95601 to 95650:

95601. JMurphy at 12:27 PM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Marcus wrote : "Yeah, maybe so, but its so out-of-date that it as good as utterly useless." Not just out-of-date but described as a "Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review". Hardly peer-reviewed but because it is contained in a peer-reviewed journal, to certain individuals that becomes a 'peer-reviewed paper against AGW Alarm' ! You couldn't make it up, normally, especially when you see him attempting to justify exposing someone else's personal details (that they didn't want exposed) in a public forum. In fact, I would go so far as to call that cowardly, especially as the person doing such a thing seems so keen on keeping the identity of himself and his website secret.
95602. Philippe Chantreau at 12:25 PM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       PT: "There is nothing outrageous or remotely illegal about using Google search results, filtering and compiling them and then posting them as contact information." It may not be illegal. However, it consists of treating information about someone, packaging it in a new form and then publishing it in that new form. All without the person's consent. My contact info is probably in a variety of places on the web. I had to give it for a number of internet activities. Although I was probably notified that other parties may use it (especially for commercial purposes), I do not recall that it included my info being "compiled, filtered and then published" with the intent of allowing anybody in the public to contact me, whatever the reason. When you are doing so, you essentially create a new set of information about an individual and then publish that set. The info may have existed before, but not under that form. For myself, I would think twice before undertaking that kind of despicable data mining followed by publication. I'm not entirely certain it is legal. I am very sure that it is weak and cowardly, however. The kind of intention that transpires from outing someone's info on the web is perfectly clear. It means that you wish some sort of action would have been taken against that person but you didn't want to do it youself. Instead you created conditions that made it possible for someone else to carry on actions if they were so enclined. And you're proud of it. Way to go PT. Ian Forrester has contributed to this site on many occasions and always did so in perfectly reasonable fashion. If he was really behaving the way you describe (which is your characterization, I'm sure there is another side to that story), there were other things you could have done. But this is what you did. It reflects on you better than anything else you've said or done.
95603. Albatross at 12:09 PM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Regarding "cyberstalking"-- from Wikipedia: "Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress." Gathering Ian's personal information and then posting it on a public forum did cause him a great deal of distress.
95604. Marcus at 11:49 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "This paper is listed under the Socio-Economic section and the journal is peer-reviewed" Yeah, maybe so, but its so out-of-date that it as good as utterly useless. Still, given that you've already proven that you wouldn't know quality research if it came up & slapped you, then its pretty obvious why you'd have missed this obvious point.
95605. Marcus at 11:46 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "Ian was a very nasty individual who kept insulting and making libelous statements about me. After I provided his contact information his attitude changed very quickly." Wow, Poptech, you really come across as a thin-skinned *thug*. Your definition of "insulting" & "libelous" are both pretty weak-especially when you've been guilty of far, far worse on this blog alone. Even if you did have a genuine case for feeling insulted/libeled, though, the action of posting people's contact details (& thereby exposing that person to violent retribution from your more fanatical devotees) exposes you as nothing more than someone more interested in silencing your critics than getting to the facts-which is pretty typical of the more extreme elements of the Denialist Cult.
95606. Andy Skuce at 11:46 AM on 15 February 2011
       The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer—a review
       MattJ@5 That's a good point. It's easy to become fatalistic about the response of the carbon cycle to global warming. After all, we can't refrigerate the permafrost and we don't have a control knob to regulate rainfall patterns in the tropics. We can, however, do some things like stopping deforestation and draining wetlands (see here). Most of all, we can, of course, reduce the chances and the severity of future carbon cycle feedbacks by limiting our CO2 emissions now. It should be remembered that David Archer's final paragraph is a description of what is not what should be. He wrote a science book. But the uncertainty that is so thoroughly described within it shouldn't provide comfort for anybody. As The Economist wrote about a year ago: Action on climate is justified, not because the science is certain, but precisely because it is not.
95607. Daniel Bailey at 11:41 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Re: Poptech

       "This is a libelous claim as I have never followed anyone around on the Internet to harass them. Ian was a very nasty individual who kept insulting and making libelous statements about me. After I provided his contact information his attitude changed very quickly."

       Oookay, then. Does this mean you're now going to cyberstalk "correct" Albatross? Or Rob? Myself? Wow... The Yooper
95608. KR at 11:32 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech: "PopTech... Okay, I'll even concede that another 10% of those papers are editorial or other than specific peer reviewed research. Heck, make it 50%! But there are a large number of other journals left to count." "Those are arbitrary numbers and the only way to verify them is to check each and every result." That is really not correct - sampling (as I've noted several times on this thread already) will provide a ratio of AGW versus non-AGW papers within whatever level of certainty you have the patience for. That can be directly applied to the journals surveyed and numbers found. Exhaustive testing (reading every single paper written) is not necessary - calling for it is just hiding from the issue. My simple survey indicates that >96% of papers are accepting of AGW as present, significant, and relevant to the real-world results being discussed. If you disagree, do your own survey and let us know. In an established field such as this, I would consider <4% to be just fringe opinions, and not relevant to the science as a whole. Especially when so many of them have proven to be really quite wrong.
95609. Berényi Péter at 11:27 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       #291 pbjamm at 10:58 AM on 15 February, 2011 I am curious how a list of papers supporting AGW could be compiled. Explicit endorsement of "anthropogenic global warming" would be too narrow a criteria as the authors explicit endorsement would not be required if their data were relevant. Also, they may use terms other than "anthropogenic global warming" so a simple search for that in any DB of papers would be insufficient. Where to start? Look for phrases like "could", "would", "robust", "up to", "unequivocal", "very likely", "consistent with", "future scenario", "projection", "big picture" and "multiple lines of evidence".
95610. Rob Honeycutt at 11:26 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech... "I already have by demonstrating that your denominator is meaningless since it is based on erroneous results." No. You've demonstrated that you are willing to apply standards to others that you are not willing to apply to yourself. If we take the full body of scientific research into climate change and compare that to the good quality peer-reviewed papers that challenge the human contribution to modern climate change... We are going to end up about where we are now. We can go through the full exercise if you like. But if you are going to apply stringent standards on my side, you have to accept stringent standards on your side.
95611. Rob Honeycutt at 11:20 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech... Ah! Now I think we're getting somewhere! You know, I don't think we're that different in our thinking. 1) The amount of warming attributable to AGW. That's extremely well studied. There are a lot of uncertainties. We have a clear understanding of the low end (1.5C) and the high end (4.5C). We don't know yet where it's actually going to fall. 2) You are exactly right. We are a highly adaptable species. Even given an extinction level event humans would most likely be one of the surviving species and would adapt. The problem here is what is in between. We're actively making a big roll of the climate dice, that's a given. We don't have the ability to control where the dice land but we do have the capacity to influence where the dice does not land. If we keep pushing the climate the way we are, based on the best research that human's have to offer, if climate sensitivity is high, we are going to create a very ugly scene for humanity over the next few hundred years. But we'll probably survive in much reduced numbers. That same scene is likely even at lower climate sensitivities if we don't adjust how we use energy now. The people who are alarmed about this are alarmed because we don't want those future generations to go through what we are potentially going to put them through. This is not coming from whacky extremist scientists. This information is coming from virtually every area of science and from every scientific organization on the planet. This is as solid as science gets.
95612. Marcus at 11:19 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       "That largely depends on two factors, the amount of the warming that is attributable to AGW and the ability of us to adapt to it. I currently believe our adaptive capacity to very great and the amount of warming attributable to AGW to be inconclusive. So I do not support AGW Alarm." Wow, could any comment be more full of fail? Firstly, the warming attributable to AGW is only "inconclusive" in the alternate universe inhabited by the Denialist Cult. Here in the real world, its abundantly clear that the planet has warmed +0.5 degrees in only 30 years-in *spite* of downward trends in Solar Irradiance & the PDO, & that this warming is unlikely to slow down as we pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. Secondly, though we might have the technical ability to adapt to at least some elements of global warming, history suggests that there is a great deal of resistance to change-if not an outright *denial* of the need to change. Several of the most advanced civilizations of their day (The Mayans, The Anasazi, the Khmer Empire & the Vikings in Greenland) all collapsed due to the unwillingness of the ruling classes to adapt their lifestyles to meet the demands of a much slower rate of climate change. The current attitudes of the Denialist Cult prove that our society hasn't changed much in the intervening 1,000 year period-which is why I'm very concerned!
95613. Utahn at 11:12 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech, I wanted to make sure I understood something about your thinking on the current consensus. Do you believe a scientific consensus exists regarding AGW alarm? If not, why not?
95614. Dikran Marsupial at 11:08 AM on 15 February 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       drrocket@17 wrote: "it needed to show that the bulge in CO2 at MLO, now global, was caused by man." If you want to argue that man was not the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, you need to be able to explain why the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 has always been less than anthropogenic emissions for the last fifty years. Do the math, if nature is a net source of CO2, then the observed rise will be greater than anthropogenic emissions, as the annual rise is equal to total emissions minus total uptake. However, this is observed not to be the case, which rules out the possibility that the observed rise is natural as it proves the natural envrionment is a net carbon sink rather than a source.
95615. pbjamm at 10:58 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       There is no shame in not knowing. Pretending to know is another matter. I am curious how a list of papers supporting AGW could be compiled. Explicit endorsement of "anthropogenic global warming" would be too narrow a criteria as the authors explicit endorsement would not be required if their data were relevant. Also, they may use terms other than "anthropogenic global warming" so a simple search for that in any DB of papers would be insufficient. Where to start?
95616. Rob Honeycutt at 10:51 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech 288... I believe the appropriate list would be a full listing of peer reviewed papers that study climate change. Once you start qualifying the search parameters you diminish the meaning of the work. There are going to be a lot of papers that don't give an opinion. They'll merely be reporting findings of research. Others will ascribe a cause. Without a doubt the number of papers on climate change issues is likely 100,000 or better. I mean, we're talking about 150 years of research on all kinds of aspects of this issue. You have 850 papers whose definition as skeptical relies only on your personal rationalization. It's just not a compelling number by any stretch.
95617. drrocket at 10:46 AM on 15 February 2011
       CO2 has a short residence time
       Skeptical Science's condensation doesn't match the original argument it attributes to Solomon. But then, Solomon's argument is too sketchy to be coherent with the IPCC AGW model. IPCC did not interpret its assignment to prove AGW. It converted its UN charter to do scientific research on the subject by first assuming that AGW exists, the AGW conjecture, then setting about to gather supporting evidence. Since the late '50s, the unparalleled CO2 record reduced from MLO measurements showed a bulge in CO2. That bulge was coincident with an increasing global temperature reduced from global measurements. What IPCC needed to establish was that the MLO record was global, not regional. For that, it relied on the long-lived conjecture, attributed to Henning Rodhe who in 1973 co-authored a paper on the subject with Bert Bolin, the first IPCC chairman from 1988 to 1997. Rodhe would become a Contributing Author on the TAR. As IPCC said, >> Because these gases are long lived, they become well mixed throughout the atmosphere much faster than they are removed and their global concentrations can be accurately estimated from data at a few locations. AR4, Technical Summary, pp. 23-24. By the way, Skeptical Science says correctly that by definition turnover time applies to the reservoir size and the rate of removal. Then it says incorrectly that the lifetime of an individual particle depends on the "flow into (or out of)" a reservoir. Not so! Replenishment is a separate phenomenon from residence time. With the well-mixed/long-lived assumption under its belt, IPCC could proceed to calibrate all CO2 measurement stations against MLO. See "identification" of other stations with the "seasonally adjusted CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa", Keeling, CD, et al., "Exchanges of Atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 with the Terrestrial Biosphere and Oceans from 1978 to 2000; I. Global Aspects", SIO Reference No. 01-06, June 2001, ¶2.2, p. 6. Lest IPCC be accused of using correlation to establish cause and effect, it needed to show that the bulge in CO2 at MLO, now global, was caused by man. To do this, it sought to establish two human fingerprints. One was that the growth in atmospheric CO2 paralleled the decline in atmospheric O2. The other was that the isotopic fraction of CO2 measured at MLO declined in proportion to the emissions of the isotopically lighter fossil fuel emissions. IPCC accomplished both by deceptive graphics, absent any supporting computation. See re AR4, Figure 2.3, SGW, Part III, A, rocketscientistsjournal.com. As insurance, IPCC showed how CO2 emissions accumulate in the atmosphere, notwithstanding the solubility pump. The uptake by the ocean, IPCC claimed, was paced by the sequestration processes of the biological pumps. This was because IPCC adopted the model that the surface layer was in thermodynamic equilibrium, thus the stoichiometric equations with their attendant equilibrium coefficients applied. This assumption controls the ratio of molecular CO2 that can exist in the surface layer. It has the bonus effect that added atmospheric CO2 must acidify the ocean. This is, of course, scientific claptrap. The surface layer is in neither thermal equilibrium, nor mechanical equilibrium, nor chemical equilibrium, the three components of thermodynamic equilibrium. IPCC reaches back to Revelle & Suess's failed attempt in 1957 to show how the ocean buffered against CO2 uptake. A reasonable alternative is that thermodynamic equilibrium is not present, that Henry's Law applies, and consequently the on-going buffering is the surface layer holding excess CO2, not the atmosphere. By the way, when IPCC tried to measure the Revelle Buffer in the open ocean, it discovered Henry's Law! When questions arose about the evidence in the second draft review, IPCC deleted it "in order not to confuse the reader." See "On Why CO2 Is Known Not To Have Accumulated in the Atmosphere, … ", rocketscientistsjournal.com. And what happens to the natural flux of CO2? According to IPCC modeling, it proceeds at a rate about 30 times faster than anthropogenic CO2, balanced and unfazed by surface layer chemistry. In the AGW model, natural and manmade CO2 obey different laws. Normal scientific skepticism applied to the AGW model is well-rewarded. It exposes much more than error.
95618. Bibliovermis at 10:41 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       So you admit you are arguing on the basis of belief.
95619. Albatross at 10:38 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Pop, "I have no idea how I am supposed to prove I never received something. You tell me." Well, I would have to see you inbox no wouldn't I. I'm done here. Feel free to talk to the walls.
95620. Riduna at 10:37 AM on 15 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Mozart @ 33 Ah! But now we have CO2 to keep us warm. Should we not be more concerned about the prospect of the sun emerging from its present minima?
95621. Albatross at 10:26 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech @283, "ROFLMAO! If both of you have come to such a ridiculous conclusion then the picture definitely needs to stay just for the pure hilarity of comments like this." That juvenile comment by you speaks volumes about you. Would you have been ROFLMAO had someone used the information provided by you to find Forrester's home and then threatened him and his family, or worse? This appears to be a game for you, it is not. Grow up.
95622. Rob Honeycutt at 10:14 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       pbjamm... I have to add, though, even ignoring the deficiencies the list is actually more endorsing of AGW in that such an amazingly small number of studies actually challenge that humans are causing current warming.
95623. Rob Honeycutt at 10:02 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       pbjamm... I'm actually quite flattered that he took the time to make a post about it. Honestly, each time he opens his mouth he digs his own hole a little bit deeper. He's kind of the gift that keeps on giving.
95624. Berényi Péter at 10:02 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       #56 muoncounter at 08:59 AM on 15 February, 2011 see the thread on recent NH warming: +0.3 degrees C/decade False. If you take the 20N - 82.5N region from RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt, that is, lower tropospheric temperature anomalies for NH Extratropics, the trend for the full 32 years of satellite record is 0.23°C/decade while for the last 14 years it is 0.06°C/decade. Of course you can also pick cherries. For the last 19 years (since February 1992), it is 0.3°C/decade indeed. Mt. Pinatubo erupted on June 15, 1991 and it took some time for the cooling to take effect. It all depends on what you mean by "recent", you see. But according to Gilbert 2009 oceans alone determine land temperature, so it makes sense to consider temperatures only there. If there is a significant CO₂ effect, it has to raise sea surface temperature first. However, it is not easy, as thermal IR radiation penetrates less than 1 mm into the sea, which in turn is several million times deeper than that.
95625. Marcus at 09:52 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       I think we've all proven that-in spite of his numerous, though repetitive, protests-PopTech's list is a complete & total joke-whose sole aim is to feed the ego of his fellow Denialists. In just a few pages, bloggers have successfully highlighted more than 20 papers (outside of the E&E papers) that clearly don't come up to scratch-for one reason or another-yet he arrogantly refuses to concede this point or amend his original claim-all whilst attacking others for allegedly doing what he actually *is* doing-typical denialist hypocrisy.
95626. BillS at 09:52 AM on 15 February 2011
       I want to earn my future, not inherit it
       I'm 58, and have a few thousand "children" of my own in the guise of my former students. David, it's your job to be positive, as it's the only viable foundation for the creativity required to save this planet for our children to come. It's also your job to want to preserve that which you currently value in our culture, including retirement. Despair and curmudgeonly acceptance of human myopia will contribute nothing. Yep, we're all in store for harder times, but let's give it a go, eh? Looking at the past few days events in Egypt makes me think perhaps our blue planet isn't destined to become a spherical Easter island after all. Perhaps intelligent intent can prevail, after all.
95627. pbjamm at 09:48 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       I dont think there is anything wrong with the image Poptech used on his website. It is pretty clearly a response to the Terminator imagery used in the original article and not a threat directed at Rob Honeycutt. There are plenty of real deficiencies in the list and that should be the focus.
95628. Marcus at 09:45 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Yes methinks that, if you remove all the dodgy E&E papers(like that travesty by Beck), all the papers of more than 20 years of age, all the papers which have been multiply debunked (like McLean's desperate bid to "Hide the Incline") & all the papers where the scientists *aren't* claiming what PopTech says they're claiming, then his list would look incredibly thin-even if you're kind enough to leave in policy-rather than Science based-papers.
95629. yocta at 09:31 AM on 15 February 2011
       I want to earn my future, not inherit it
       If this article is typical of the thinking of twenty-somethings on the topic, no wonder their voice has so little impact. If that statement is typical of a baby boomer then no wonder our voice falls on deaf ears! As a 26 year old I look at my baby boomer retired parents galavanting on travels around the world and I also wonder if my retirement could ever be like this. Gen-Y's are sometimes referred to as "Gen-why bother" since the future does look a mess but I find it refreshing that there is another gen-Y out there who is trying to make some sort of change. Good post David. FYI there are some great new programs starting in the community that are aimed at such day to day transformation in people's lifestyles (in Australia at least) such as the CSIRO's Energymark.
95630. JMurphy at 09:28 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       How can anyone take seriously any list that has the following : The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming (Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992) - Patrick J. Michaels I can find no more than the first page (as you can see from the above link), which seems to be arguing against a 1990 article in JGR (Potential Evapotranspiration and the Likelihood of Future Drought) and the output of some models from the early 80s. It certainly makes clear that the previous IPCC Report (from 1990) is not what some individuals would describe as 'alarmist' - whatever that actually means. Elsewhere, this article is described thus : **Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review Can that realistically be described as peer-reviewed ? As for the journal itself : The purpose of this organization shall be to publish a journal, which presents scholarly articles concerning international and comparative law issues, including tribal/indigenous peoples law. So, an article which is nearly 20 years old, presented in a law journal, and arguing against some selected articles, is claimed to be 'against AGW Alarm' - whatever that means. Can the use of that paper in that little list really be based on one page ? Surely there's more ?
95631. Albatross at 09:13 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       BP @55, Why are you cherry picking February 1997 as a starting point? And you know very well that calculating trends for periods less than 20 years or so years is a no-no. And why do you focus only on lower tropospheric above the oceans? Note too that the RSS product doesn't include the poles (i.e., does not reflect polar amplification). Where did you source that graphic? Let me see, read the text here. What the...? Anyhow, how about we look at all the data BP. GIven that you chose temperatures above the oceans, allow me to show you the HadSST data record. The long-term rate of warming is 0.16 K per decade as shown by Marcus, not to mention several other datasets, see here. There was definitely a slow-down in the warming between 1945 and 1970. You claim that "I do. I also know it can't be true" referring to the aerosol loading hypothesis. Can you actually support that assertion with with some facts? Otherwise you are just arm waving.
95632. muoncounter at 08:59 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       #55: "Marcus' claim of a recent +0.16°C/decade warming expressed under #37 exaggerated." False. See multiple prior threads here which verify that figure. Since you are okay with selecting a region and calling it global, see the thread on recent NH warming: +0.3 degrees C/decade. "since then lower tropospheric temperature anomaly trend above the oceans is practically flat ... El Chichón or Pinatubo clustering in the first half of the last three decades explain this feature." How so? The cooling associated with Pinatubo was finished by '93. See the temperature graph in #50.
95633. muoncounter at 08:52 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       #270: "'alarm' can be defined fairly rigorously by refering to papers ... that lead to the conclusion that BAU is unacceptable" PT's use of the made-up term 'AGW alarm' suggests that there's something inherently wrong with such an 'alarm.' That by itself is a value judgment. If a valid scientific study reaches a conclusion that something devastating will happen if we do not act, is it not fully justified -- or perhaps even required -- to spread the 'alarm'? If the roof of your house is on fire while you are down cellar where its nice and cool, don't you want to know about it? Clearly, PT would be more interested in shooting the messenger. #274: Albatross, in the US, it's equivalent to putting rifle cross hairs on your political opponents' districts.
95634. Berényi Péter at 08:46 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       #53 michael sweet at 07:13 AM on 15 February, 2011 The standard explaination for the flat curve between 1940 and 1980 is sulfate aerosol pollution counteracting the warming from CO2. You certainly know that. I do. I also know it can't be true. According to the Hadley Centre SST reconstruction above (based on Rayner 2006) the curve is not flat between 1940 and 1980. It drops sharply between 1940 and 1950, but between 1950 and 1980 it has the same general upward slope (0.1°C/decade) as it has after 1980. No one cleared up pollution in the 1950s. Anyway, Marcus' claim of a recent +0.16°C/decade warming expressed under #37 exaggerated. There was a sizable jump in the second half of the 1990s, but since then lower tropospheric temperature anomaly trend above the oceans is practically flat. Huge volcanic eruptions like El Chichón or Pinatubo clustering in the first half of the last three decades explain this feature.
95635. Dikran Marsupial at 08:44 AM on 15 February 2011
       The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer—a review
       RickG@4 I second that recommendation, I've only seen the first four so far, but they were well worth watching - definitely time well spent.
95636. Dikran Marsupial at 08:41 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       BP@51 NH Extratropics may be a large region, but it isn't global, so you can't logically use it to refute an argument about global temperatures. I am not making an argumentum ad ignoratium regarding warming rates, as the only statement I have made on the subject is that the recent warming rate (since the 1970s or so) is not particularly unusual. Given that the 1910-1940 warming ocurred at a not too disimilar rate, why is this such a surprising statement? Besides, did you not read the bit in my post where I said Marcus was quite possibly wrong on that particular point? BP wrote "You are right. Based on that knowledge would you please explain to all why global SST increased between 1910 and 1940 at a 0.165°C/decade rate, dropped by 0.24°C during the next decade, then increased again at a rate of 0.1°C/decade ever since?" You could always try reading the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report, which addresses that point (I would give you a page number, but I am out of the office at the moment). The rise 1910-1940 in global temperatures is attributed to solar forcing, the mid century dip in temperatures are thought to be due to aerosols as michael sweet pointed out. Both the greenhouse effect and aerosols will affect sea surface temperatures as well as air temperatures. Downwelling IR will warm the surface waters just as they warm anything else. BTW is there any reason for plotting a graph of sea surface temperatures, rather than global temperatures?
95637. Albatross at 08:36 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Muoncounter @273, Despite claims to the contrary by PT, I would even go so far as to say by using that image in the context of Rob's name suggests it was a threat of violence by PT against Rob. I trust PT has at least the decency to amend his blog post. I think it is time to close the thread or simply ignore PT. Remember this person has a track record of cyber stalking and posting someone's personal information on the internet, see here for the one example that I know of. To make matters worse, PT has even tried to justify and defend such outrageous behaviour. Now before someone takes offence at me resurrecting this issue, it does raise concerns as to the motives and intentions of the curator of the list, and it is important for people following this thread to know what we are up against here. We could argue with PT for days and the discussion will go nowhere. Rob raised a very valid point, and others here have raised even more valid and pertinent points that call into question the validity and credibility of the list. In the end, the theory of AGW stands, and has yet to be overturned. Unlike the potpourri of papers on the list, the theory of AGW presents a consistent, robust and coherent picture. The real skeptics are the reputable climate scientists who publish in the reputable literature, and whose research have withstood the test of time.
95638. DavidRobertson at 08:30 AM on 15 February 2011
       I want to earn my future, not inherit it
       Thanks Don. Mike - I see no colossal mistake; I even agreed with the saying, just noted that it is a cliche! I don't point the finger at anyone in this article, so I fail to see how I let anyone off the hook. People in developing countries ARE the least able to cope with predicted climate change impacts. There are few major science bloggers from these areas. I merely pointed that out as a representation problem. "The resulting triumph of war, pestilence and famine as the whole biosphere degrades will make 'retirement' look like a really childish dream." You might be right. But I'm 23 - little more than a child. Why would I meekly accept a long, bleak future when I can try to shape it for the better? If young people take no action, we have no prospects. That's the equation. You agree with me: "our opportunities to "shape our own future" are rapdily retreating; we have lost too much time already." We don't disagree; I look at the situation with more optimism than you do. Billy, it's possible to live one day at a time AND look to the future. Short-sighted decision-making is a major reason we're in this mess. If I can help to convince people to make positive changes in their day-to-day lives now, then our collective day-to-day existence in 30 years might be a lot easier! The Bloggies are a platform for me to share such a message with a wider audience than I could normally reach.
95639. MattJ at 08:20 AM on 15 February 2011
       The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer—a review
       I am concerned that his final summary, "Wait and see" sounds too much like exactly what the 'deniers' want us to do: rather than act on reducing carbon, they want us to "wait and see" if the carbon cycle can automagically recover from the shock we are giving it.
95640. Don9000 at 07:45 AM on 15 February 2011
       I want to earn my future, not inherit it
       MattJ: I think the word cliché fits the way the psalm is used by many people (as in situations where the meek are being trampled upon and there does not appear to be much likelihood that the particular meek in questions are going to either find their misfortunes overturned in their lifetimes, or posthumously discover themselves to be blessed). Here's the three noun definitions as given on-line by Merriam-Webster: 1: a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it 2: a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation 3: something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace These three meanings are fairly close, and I believe they can all be fairly applied to the phrase in question which has at times been overused. Thus, given the fact that all Robinson has basically said is that "The meek shall inherit the earth" is overused, I really do not see how you reached the conclusion that he has made "a colossal mistake." I think your claim is at best an example of hyperbole. At worst, it may reflect an overzealous response on your part to someone who has had the temerity to criticize contemporary uses of a biblical phrase ascribed to Jesus. As far as your comments on the past and future of retirement are concerned, I cannot really disagree, since I do not think most civilizations across the scope of human history ever formally adopted the kind of relatively recent models you take note of. That said, there is evidence dating back a fair ways into our ancestral past which shows that people past the prime of their lives were cared for by other members of their families, clans, or tribes. Indeed, there is evidence Neanderthals exhibited this kind of behavior. With this in mind, I don't find Robertson's hopes to be as naive as you seem to think they are.
95641. BillyJoe at 07:37 AM on 15 February 2011
       I want to earn my future, not inherit it
       David, I'm sorry, I hate to attack a young man full of enthusiasm, but there is very little that inpires me in your article. In fact, I'm feel sort of sad and concerned. ASt the ripe age of 23 you are looking at what retirement might bring! My god, man, live one day at a time. The future gives you no guarantees, even that you'll get there. But today is guaranteed to be a good one if you just set your mind on it rather the future. Then you spoiled it completely with your appeal to help you win the Best Science Blog for 2011! Just do your best with each blog you write and let the cards fall where they may. Winning or losing the competition will make no difference if you are happy with what you've done.
95642. muoncounter at 07:35 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       #254: "put something dangerously misleading out of it's misery." However humorous you feel that is, the use of that image in context with Rob's name is in exceedingly bad taste.
95643. Gemmahook at 07:25 AM on 15 February 2011
       How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
       David what an excellent article, are you going to be writing any more posts?x
95644. Rob Honeycutt at 07:15 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       PopTech... Okay, I'll even concede that another 10% of those papers are editorial or other than specific peer reviewed research. Heck, make it 50%! But there are a large number of other journals left to count. You can't win this PopTech. The 850 papers you so liberally define as not supporting AGW are a very tiny fraction of the body of peer-reviewed research. I'm really sorry to crush your project into such nothingness but that's what it is. Nothing. The amount of real research into climate change that does not support the consensus theory of AGW is very very small.
95645. michael sweet at 07:13 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       BP, The standard explaination for the flat curve between 1940 and 1980 is sulfate aerosol pollution counteracting the warming from CO2. You certainly know that. When the west cleared up sulfate pollution (to counteract acid rain), it started to heat up again. It is not even worth me providing a link. What is your point anyway? Have you given up on trying to find data that supports your position and now you argue that no-one knows anything,it is all "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"? You will have to forget a lot of the data in the IPCC report to do that.
95646. Eric (skeptic) at 07:04 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Albatross, I think "alarm" can be defined fairly rigorously by refering to papers with global tipping points, negative impact trends, or sea level projections that lead to the conclusion that BAU is unacceptable. I have seen a number of papers in the denominator that do not express alarm and in fact do not support alarm. I don't know if it is a significant percentage or negligible.
95647. RSVP at 07:02 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       Is there any reason why the ocean's "sea level" is not a good proxy for describing average global temperature, going back 10,000 years? Shouldnt there be a direct relationship between the total water line and overall temperature? And taking this just a tad further, I would ask if there be any proxy around that can mark the rate of such changes? If so, I guess maybe someone could know if climate had ever changed so fast in the past, or could theoretically change even faster due to some natural occurrence. And what exactly justifies the assumption of linear and or continuous climate models, there being many natural phenomenon that are sporatic and intermittent? An observed change may just be a fluke of natural variation not unlike a hurricane that has a beginning and an end.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] As always, please use the Search function to find an appropriate thread where(far more likely than not) these questions have already been dealt with here at SkS. You already know this, RSVP.
95648. MattJ at 07:01 AM on 15 February 2011
       I want to earn my future, not inherit it
       If this article is typical of the thinking of twenty-somethings on the topic, no wonder their voice has so little impact. Now that may sound harsh, and I realize there is a risk it will call down a Moderator's wrath, but alas, it is fully justified, and that NOT based on any ad hominem. Why? Because the author starts off right away with a colossal mistake, calling one of the beatitudes a "cliche". Or was he referring to "I want to earn it, not inherit"? If the latter, then he is guilty of very bad ambiguity. Unfortunately, it gets worse. If, for example, the author had studied a little history, he would have realized that the milieu in which it was/is reasonable to expect to retire is actually the exception in human history. Historically, life has been a struggle for survival that ends only with death. Often, it has been an intense, brutal struggle -- as it still is for a lot of people around the world. More importantly, even where retirement has been achieved, it is fragile. Consider, for example, how many people's retirement savings were wiped out by Bernie Madoff's fraud, or by the financial collapse of 2007/2008, even for people who followed all the best financial advice available at the time; ignore the "Monday morning quarterbackers" who claim that they knew a better financial plan. Even more dramatic, yet still too easily overlooked by so many, is the total collapse of retirement for the Soviets, who were looking forward to a comfortable pension thanks to the Soviet system. But the inflation of the Yeltsin years wiped it out completely. Entire generations of retirees lost everything they had. Not just their retirement, everything. Of course, even the later generations lost their opportunity for retirement as well. The economic shocks caused by the financial collapse and the collapse of the Soviet Union were small compared to the shocks that AGW will cause. So it is not at all unreasonable to expect that "comfortable retirement" is one of the first casualties of AGW. There will be many more, our opportunities to "shape our own future" are rapdily retreating; we have lost too much time already. Oh, BTW: the "developing countries" share the blame for this, too. The article author is quite wrong to let them off the hook. For it is out of a sick, misguided sort of envy that the developing countries are insisting on matching and even surpassing our carbon footprint in the name of building their own economies, making the excuse that it is the only way to pull their peoples out of poverty. That is why India and China both teamed up to sabotage the Copenhagen conference; the Chinese with their ridiculous insistence on no binding carbon goals, agreeing to the document only after its emasculation. Both of them, and even Brazil too, insisted on the gross fraud of referring to carbon targets/taxes etc. as "the developed world forcing its will on the developing countries" India Times article Exposing BRIC's Hypocritical Sabotage Now I realize that I yet again run the risk of having this comment being deleted on the grounds that it is political. But again, there is a connection to the science here. Not to mention: it is no more political than the article itself. The connection to the science is: all these nations have political reasons for ignoring the science and despising the Cassandras who insist on reminding them of the truth. As long as this is not understood, no matter how sound the science, the political motives, bad though they are, will win out until it is far, for too late. This IS a fact of political science. The resulting triumph of war, pestilence and famine as the whole biosphere degrades will make 'retirement' look like a really childish dream.
95649. Eric (skeptic) at 06:56 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       This /The-value-of-coherence-in-science.html might be a good article to establish coherent frameworks of non-GHG, non-GW, non-AGW, non-CAGW and group the 850 papers accordingly. There will be some overlap, but I would certainly exclude any non-GHG paper from the subsequent groups. For example, non-GHG is the adiabatic theory of warming earth (condution-based warming with trivial effects from back radiation) is not coherent with non-AGW, in which existing CO2 is necessary for existing warmth but added CO2 does not add warmth. This is a large effort, but it is easy to do incrementally: take any pair of papers and look for contradictory assumptions or conclusions. I try to do the same with a the mainstream science, but it is not without controversy (see thread above).
95650. Rob Honeycutt at 06:52 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       PopTech said... "I have not received an email from any scientist negative in any way about the list." Oh, yeah, but there was Dr Pielke...

Prev  1905  1906  1907  1908  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  Next