Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 Next
Comments 96001 to 96050:
-
Berényi Péter at 00:18 AM on 15 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
#37 Marcus at 11:34 AM on 11 February, 201 When you & your fellow denialists can show us a *natural* mechanism for how the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade (the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years) over the last 30 years
Marcus, you may notice that according to this reconstruction using RCS (Regional Curve Standardization) NH extratropics have warmed by 0.66°C in 40 years between 950 and 990 AD. That's a rate of +0.165°C/decade. As the reconstruction is based on tree rings, arctic amplification is left out. Also, it is a smoothed version of the actual temperature anomaly signal after a 40 year low-pass filter was applied.
Therefore your claim the warming which is observed "over the last 30 years" is "the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years" is unsubstantiated. Now, as it is established, it is your turn to show us an *unnatural* mechanism that you think was responsible for warming a thousand years ago.
Science 22 March 2002
Vol. 295 no. 5563 pp. 2250-2253
DOI: 10.1126/science.1066208
Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability
Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook & Fritz H. Schweingruber
It is very likely there were many more 30 year long periods during the last 10,000 years when rate of warming was faster than we see right now (followed by cooling later on, of course). Sorry, pink noise is just like that. In the good old days it was called natural variability.
-
John Bruno at 23:38 PM on 14 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
I like your contrarian spirit! Hopefully, you apply that to science on both sides of the isle. "It looks like you're putting the imperative of the message before the science." In this case, I think correctly interpreting the science matters. But, I really just want to get at truth, not prove a point. Iv'e gotten myself into a lot of trouble with my colleagues for publishing a few papers that (like Sweatman et al) argue reef degradation isn't as severe as we thought (in terms of both coral loss and seaweed increase)(Bruno et al 2008 - warning 7GB file!, Schutte et al 2010) Some colleagues - for whom I do think the message is more important than the science - wrote a pretty tough critique (Hughes et al 2010) of our work, ie, the positions in that case are reversed! I am working on a "rebuttal post" (and publication) that in essence explains how they cherry pick to exaggerate the decline. (point being I'm a non-idiological critic) -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:37 PM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@71 wrote "Show me a paper that does not mention "anthropogenic global warming" but explicitly endorses it." Just as an exercise, I tried to find the phrase "anthropogenic global warming" in the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report. I ocurrs exactly once and once only (on page 896, in a discsussion of the projected regional climate change for central and south america.) Now if that one reference were deleted, would the IPCC WG1 report no longer be "expicitly endorsing" "anthropogenic global warming" (other than in mere pedantry)? Poptechs challenge just demonstrates that he has not really looked at the literature, there are plenty of papers by e.g. James Hansen that do not contain the phrase "anthropgenic global warming", does that mean they don't support the hypothesis that much the observed warming since the late 20th century is due to an anthropogenic increase in long-lived GhGs? No, of course not. Poptech has been told before that if he wants to curate a resource that would actually be of benefit to the skeptics, he needs to do more than just collect papers. He needs to organise them by topic (much as John has done here at sks - which is why it is a vauable resource); but more importantly he needs to weed out the papers that are incorrect - otherwise he is sending skeptics into battle* armed with blanks. I'm sure they'll thank him for that! A skeptic version of skepticalscience would be a really good thing for the debate, if it would stop the same old tired canards being trotted out again and again, rather than encouraging their reuse, which is all that Poptech's list really achieves. * N.B. as far as the science there are no "sides" and no "battle" - we are all seeking the truth. -
Alexandre at 23:17 PM on 14 February 2011The Climate Show: Episode 6 and their own website
It's a great podcast. I look forward each new episode. The relaxed tone, the special guests and the structure of different blocks (science, solutions, Skeptical Science, etc.) makes it an interesting, informative and easy hearing. I usually listen to it in the car, on my way to work. -
Bern at 23:16 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
@Glenn Tamblyn: that's not a very cheery thought to end on, though I fully understand where you're coming from. Given the advances in medical science we've seen over the past few decades, there's a distinct possibly some of us typing here today will live to see some of the consequences of global warming. When I think about the "head in the sand" attitude of many deniers & political conservatives, though, I sometimes despair for my baby daughter's future, and wonder if my grandchildren will have a habitable world to grow up in... one thing's for sure - it's not gonna be the same world I grew up in. -
RSVP at 22:49 PM on 14 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
Marcus In 37, you wrote... "When you & your fellow denialists can show us a *natural* mechanism for how the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade (the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years) over the last 30 years" According, the inverse must also be true. That some climate proxy exists with a 30 year or less resolution going back 10,000 years, proving that such a change has never occurred in the past. -
les at 22:32 PM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
As always, fascinating. The various means the "denial" community come up with of "disproving" stuff. It's going to keep philosophers of science, sociologists, psychologists etc. in work for years to come. I had no idea of Pop Tech's particular techniques before... and yet it seems to date back to 2009. Better Check That List / rogerpielkejr.blogspot "My attention has just be called to a list of "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming." A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does." all be it with a smaller, and shrinking, numerator. -
BillyJoe at 21:31 PM on 14 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
I suppose it is true to say that amateurs necessarily cherry pick but that they don't necessarily do so deliberately. They just aren't aware of, or don't have access to, the multitude of information that swamps their little cherry pick. -
BillyJoe at 21:18 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Dana, "Clear as mud, right?" Thanks for your, actually, very clear explanation. :) -
Riduna at 19:36 PM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I wonder how PopTech would classify a paper by Cliff Ollier setting out novel views about Greenland ice loss, published in a reviewed journal at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html Does PopTech take take into account that Olliers position is subsequently demolished by a paper published in the same journal a month later, at: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page7523.html The first paper would I am sure get on the PopTech list but I very much doubt that any note would be taken of the second paper. -
Riduna at 18:36 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
A compelling refutation of Monckton (who read Classics at Cambridge, not Economics) and one which concludes with the all important question … what exactly are we waiting for? From government, we are waiting for political will and realisation that continued failure to adopt meaningful CO2 reduction targets and introduce an ETS, designed to prevent undermining its purpose (eg through trading in off-sets of little value), is not and never has been an option. Prime Minister Gillard appears more resolute than her predecessors. Given the scientific advice she is receiving and pressure from the Greens, she has little option but to seek passage of legislation and its implementation in 2011. Opposition insistence that adapting to climate change, paying the business sector to reduce emissions and adoption of a meaningless CO2 reduction target (5% below 2000 levels by 2020) makes them irrelevant. Acceptance of science based advice rather than that provided by climate change deniers (Monckton, Plimer et al) is unlikely. The Opposition has yet to explain how we can adapt to increasingly global warming and ocean acidification or pay for their effects. In reality, the attitude of the Opposition towards climate change and its consequences makes them irrelevant. Excluding fossil fuel industries, the business sector appears more interested in maintaining its competitiveness in domestic and international markets. It is likely to oppose an ETS or Carbon Tax which does not give them comfort in this regard, largely because it is ill-informed, particularly about new commercial opportunities The fossil fuel and coal fired energy industries faced with reduced domestic use of their products by 2020 and significant fall in exports by 2050 will not support measures hastening decline of very lucrative markets. In summary, the Australian government will act to abate CO2 emissions in 2011 and assist development of alternative energy sources, gas and geothermal, to replace fossil fuels. Transition to a low (then no) carbon economy will pose challenges for both government and industries dependent on fossil fuel use. They can and will be met with in-depth planning, so far not evident. Is Minister Combet the man for the job? -
HumanityRules at 18:01 PM on 14 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
"What have they got to do with science? Are you kidding? Science isn't just numbers in a lab notebook. If it isn't communicated (with peers, the public, policy makers) it isn't science. Addressing the distortion of science and attempting to explain that distortion (and explain the science clearly and honestly) is part of the job of a scientist (and of an educator, which I also am)." But what does this have to do with Sweatman's science? I can only see that what you're worrying about is what The Australian might say about Sweatman's science rather than what Sweatman is saying himself. It looks like you're putting the imperative of the message before the science. "My beef isn't about whether there is a step change, if so what caused it, etc. It is about what the GBR looked like before people, ie, what is the baseline. I don't think reef state in 1986 represented the baseline. Make sense?" Having read Sweatman's paper I don't actually see how this captures Sweatman's position. He seems to be unconvinced that your methodology captures the true trend. His position seems to be more accurtaely that the longer term trend is overstated not that it started in 1986. But I'm happy to defer to you and him on this and look forward to reading more. -
John Chapman at 16:47 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Mozart at #19. Natural gas is touted as a partial solution, but there is a catch. Comparisons tend to only look at the combustion of the gas, not the extraction from a well. Often CO2 is included in the source and it has to be separated. There is a new gas well in Western Australia (Browse)which when it comes on line shortly will produce 5% of the country's CO2 emissions!!! One gas well producing more CO2 than the whole of NZ! An appropriate carbon tax would have ensured that the project wasn't viable. -
iana at 16:45 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
The World Bank also do a great job of ignoring the science in their economic analyses: The World Bank, droughts, and voodoo economics -
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:39 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Mozart "But there is a limit to the speed we can convert to non carbon forms of energy. And a cost. Make that cost too high and economic activity will be threatened. The complex linkages and dependencies we have in our now global economy, are at least as fragile and delicate as those in our eco system. Food shortages and famine are just a perturbation away. We have to be wise about all this." Some scary factors: - At current rates most of the worlds fisheries will have collapsed by mid-century - Soil loss and fertility decline is on a similar trajectory. - Peak Oil is either upon us or very soon. - How far off is Peak Gas? In addition to their use as fuels they are essential ingredients in fertiliser production. - Major aquifers supplying water to grow food for nearly a billion people are in massive decline - in western India, Northern China, The American mid-west. So too Glacial melt and snow pack changes will have similar effects. - Population is predicted to hit 9-10 Billion around the same time. How far off is the worlds first Billion person famine? - As food shortages start to spread widely, how many more nations will be added to the list of 'failed states'? - If the failure of states starts to spread, what happens to international law, piracy, warfare, disease control & quarantine, international financial institutions and trade? And we haven't even mentioned Global Warming yet. Its impact is not just on the things we normally think of, but as a 'force miltiplier' for all the other threats. We are caught by a two edged sword. With our current arrangements for how the worlds economic and political systems work, if we try to change energy systems etc too quickly we seriously risk making these problems worse now. But if we don't act rapidly, AGW a few decades from now will so massively compound these threats that the our civilisation may go into an inexorable slide. So worst-case scenario; we don't act on AGW anywhere nearly strongly enough, or not at all, perhaps because we are so bound up just coping with the day to day crises. Then AGW gets into high gear mid-century with a few of the 'tipping point' factors coming into play and our societies really start to implode. And in this hugely traumatised world, as many major nations are under huge pressure, someone pushes the Nuclear Launch button. After that, our over-population problems are probably solved. But after perhaps two generations of collapse, how much of our current knowledge and technology will our descendents retain. As a book I read recently on brain neuro-plasticity commented, 'civilisation is only really one generation deep' In a world that is much harsher than anything in the last 10,000 years; with the psychic trauma of the collapse affecting everyone left; with the loss of our most precious and fragile resource, our knowledge base; on a world where all the easily extractable resources have already been extracted; Our descendents may by trying to start a viable hunter-gatherer society in a world that looks like something out of Mad Max. And the people who may see all this happen are alive today. In schools all over the world. -
actually thoughtful at 15:23 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Muoncounter - given the failure of the political system (in the US at least) to handle global warming - we can only hope that supply will crater compared to demand. But then people will feel justified in all kind of environmental sins to chase another barrel of oil (Alaska's ANWR being one obvious choice - fraking the entire Bakken field, etc., etc.). Given the failure of our national governments, it is becoming challenging to see this ending well. -
adelady at 15:17 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
"The cost of repairs to disasters and warfare contribute to GDP! They are part of the domestic product. " Maybe. But the tax incentives or low-cost loans or direct payments by governments for such major projects take tax revenues away from other worthwhile purposes. Thinking that things will be better because governments will get back 10 or 20 or 30% of their outlays from taxes on wages, profits or goods & services is reassuring - until you start doing it over and over and over again for no net improvement in infrastructure and services. It's worthwhile for genuinely longterm investments. Doing it repeatedly without getting *new*, additional bridges or airports or whatever for that cost because the necessary funds are locked in to replacing, repairing or relocating the existing services is financial suicide. If you've not taken future climate problems into account, where will you find appropriate large parcels of land that should have been set aside for such developments 20 or 30 years earlier. Genuinely longterm infrastructure investments must take future issues like storms, floods and fires into account. That means effects of climate change. Investment will be a lot more valuable if the airport or sewage treatment plant is still above sea level 60+ years from now. And if dams and bridges can withstand storm levels prevailing 80+ years from completion. -
Ron Crouch at 15:09 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
If Brown is correct I can envision a barrel of oil rising to $200 or more. That's plain simple economics, a dwindling supply mixed with growing demand. Once alternative energy becomes cheaper than conventional sources there should be a major surge toward investment in alternative energy leading to growth and employment in that sector. So why always apply this short-term economics approach to things which is basically what people like Monckton argue. Long-term economics would tend to indicate that investment today would lead to increased economic benefit in the short-term also while averting some of the increased cost due to future inflation. I don't see investment in alternative energy as any potential threat to any countries economy. It is inevitable that at some point in time that there will simply be a transition period where employment in various sectors will shift to other sectors as demand for new technologies increases and older technologies become more expensive to maintain and operate. So these arguments that moving forward will cause hardship, job losses, and hurt the economy, is simply a flawed argument. -
dana1981 at 14:59 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Mozart - I agree that we can't wish our problems away. But a carbon price increases the market for alternative technologies, and potentially creates a revenue stream to fund their R&D (depending on how the government allocates the carbon funds). In short, a carbon price is a proactive step in solving our problems. -
mozart at 14:34 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Bern is right conservation is a big part of any energy solution. Simply putting European style petroleum taxes in place in the USA would have a huge effect. Likewise hybrid technology, weight reductions in vehicles etc. And by all means put people in trains, if you can get their acquiesence. The other big opportunity is natural gas....a 30% CO2 reduction with Trade Balance benefits, and a reduction in the world's dangerous dependence on the Middle East. As Chapman points out nuclear is the other practical answer. But this one is on a longer burn(if you'll excuse the term). Sure we have the capability and the long term uranium supply to build a huge nuclear infrastructure. But even though it's now PC to ignore the risks....it didn't used to be, and for good reason. Care has to be taken, and last I looked opinions still counted for something. People don't want reactors in their backyards. Don't look for the big nuclear step before 2030. The other stuff, solar, wind hydropower, biofuels and geothermal are admirable....but small. They can be doubled, trebled....but they wont be a solution, just a contributor. And the effects of the vast electical power generation to make transportation non carbon, are daunting. Imagine the impact on copper, already in tight supply. You can't wish all the problems away. -
muoncounter at 14:20 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
#16: "a notable argument to be made for using the current abundant fossil fuel to bootstrap ourselves into the carbon free economy." Here's a report that suggests there may be less time for that than many believe. ... the decline in exports from countries like Saudi Arabia could mean that consumer nations such as the U.S. will be competing for a shrinking pool of available oil. For every three barrels of oil that countries excluding China and India imported in 2005, there will be only two by 2015, Brown estimates. China and India, meanwhile, will consume about a third of global exports by then to fuel the rapid growth of their expanding economies. The combined economic impact of competitive demand on an international scale and declining production will make a 'carbon tax' seem cheap. -
Bern at 14:11 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
@John Chapman: You estimate $10 trillion to replace existing coal-fired electricity generation with nuclear. But there are studies out there that show electricity demand can be *halved* or better by implementation of energy efficiency measures (like using more efficient lighting - I replaced 200w of halogen lighting in the kitchen at home with 36w of LEDs, and it's more than enough light for 99% of tasks). The monthly magazine of Engineers Australia used to regularly feature articles about energy efficiency measures applied to industry & commercial buildings. In every case, without exception, the investment was paid off inside five years. Even for the cases where the cost was measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Think what that would mean to the bottom line of the average business, if they could, for example, get very low (or even zero) interest finance from the government to fund efficiency measures. My point being that many steps that may be taken to reduce fossil fuel demand, and consequently carbon emissions, are net zero cost, or even net negative cost, when measured over periods as short as 3-5 years. What's the longer term benefit to you, personally, if you managed to cut your power & fuel bills in half? Case study: we currently pay about $1,200 per year for electricity. At the current level, it's a third lower than before we had our solar hot water installed (which cost us ~$600 more than installing a replacement electric hot water system). So I estimate we're saving about $300-$400 *per year* on electricity costs, for an out-of-pocket cost of $600, which should be good for at least 10-15 years. First estimate, then, is that spending $600 now saves us $3,000 over 10 years, for a five-fold return on investment. And that's assuming the cost of electricity doesn't go up, which is wishful thinking in Australia, irrespective of any price on carbon! -
actually thoughtful at 14:06 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
I am not sure that switching to a carbon free economy has the cost that people assume/impute. Look economies have to DO something. They can efficiently convert food into fuel (efficient here means lots of people make money - it doesn't mean it is efficient in any scientific sense). So we can wind our economy up and set it to solving global warming - and people will make money doing that. Or we can wind it up to drill/frac/squeeze every bit of fossil fuel out of the earth. The economy cares not one whit. And there is a notable argument to be made for using the current abundant fossil fuel to bootstrap ourselves into the carbon free economy. This gets much, much harder when certain rare metals become much rarer, and energy becomes much, much more expensive. -
scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Rather than fretting about carbon tax/carbon trading as first off, how about beginning by killing every subsidy on fossil fuel? You would pay more for energy but less for tax. Let some market forces go to work. (Personal political opinion - subsidies have a place in education and health. Nowhere in industry including renewables). -
John Chapman at 13:28 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
How much money was thrown at the banks and economy as a remedy for the GFC? To replace all the coal-fired power plants with nuclear ones would require 2,000 of the structures at say $5b each. That's $10 trillion, for a 30% reduction in CO2 emmissions. Not a bad investment I would say! [Please refrain from starting a discussion on the cost of nuclear power plants :)]. To cease burning of forests would reduce another 30%, and replace vehicles with electric ones - OK will also need to double the quantity of nuke plants to charge the vehicles - and voila we have a 90% reduction in emissions. The world has the technology, but short-term economic arguments take precedence over the future well-being of the planet. On the subject of GDP, be careful. The cost of repairs to disasters and warfare contribute to GDP! They are part of the domestic product. -
Marcus at 13:03 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
You're absolutely correct MattJ. A far better approach is to use CO2 from power/heat generation to grow algae, then extract the oils from the algae that can be then converted to bio-diesel. The remains can then be gasified & the gas burned for heat/electricity. -
muoncounter at 12:58 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
#6: "In the meantime natural gas, which would cut CO2 emissions by 29% versus oil, receives no support" Ah Mozart, do you not know the inner workings of the oil and gas business? 'Subsidies' start with the percentage depletion allowance. Production tax credits helped kick off the booming shale gas play. GWB's Energy Policy Act of 2005 also slipped in clever exemptions to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act for oil and gas production - which helped give us the ability to frac just about anything anywhere. Methane in your drinking water? Too bad. There's even a field in Canada doing a massive CO2 flood (and pilot sequestration project), with reports of CO2 leaking out of damaged casing and flowing to surface. -
MattJ at 12:52 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
@Marcus- More importantly, Ethanol is a really poor source of "carbon mitigation". Growing plants to ferment into ethanol is not only a ludicrously inefficient way to convert solar energy into chemical energy, the fermentation releases CO2 into the air, too. I don't have a reference to a reliable carbon budget, but as I recall, many have cast reasonable doubt on the carbon footprint of ethanol use. -
MattJ at 12:49 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
@Mozart- "Food shortages and famine are just a perturbation away. We have to be wise about all this. " Why, yes. They are. But I think you have misunderstood what direction this 'perturbation' will come from. It is already quite reasonable to believe that AGW was a major factor in the rise in the price of wheat that has caused a sharp rise in food prices all over Africa and the Middle East. We just saw how drastic the political consequences can be. We are very lucky that so far, it has turned in to the Arab version of 1848. But we know, for example, that the drought in Russia was typical of AGW, and that caused the price of wheat to rise. We know to expect much more of this in the near coming decades. It will only be a short time before seafood shortages follow, due to our near total neglect of ocean acidification and the die-off of deep sea phytoplankton. Then the political consequences will not be so benign, famine will be widespread. Even if we do raise the price on carbon too steeply, the damage to our food supply system will not be as drastic as that due to the continuing neglect. Besides: it really will not take that long for nuclear, solar and (relatively low carbon) natural gas to replace high carbon sources, since we really have made that much progress in recent years. High carbon prices give us strong incentives to close the gap and make these really affordable and widespread. -
adelady at 12:24 PM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
" then we will only have to adapt to the probably few and minor consequences that will eventually occur, and not until they occur, and only where and to the extent that they occur. " Does he know any civil engineers or town planners? What to do about bridges, railway construction, road construction, dams, sewage treatment plants, housing construction standards? Many of these things are designed with 60 to 200 year life expectancy. Does Monckton really think that we should blithely go on as though 'very little' will happen, and then relocate or repair or rebuild or abandon these major projects when storms or floods or fires ruin them? "Redoing" multi-billion $ infrastructure every few years because we look the other way sounds like the road to bankruptcy to me. -
John Bruno at 12:01 PM on 14 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
correction; just heard Hugh asked to write a response as a post at climate shifts... -
John Bruno at 11:50 AM on 14 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
Humanity rules, What have they got to do with science? Are you kidding? Science isn't just numbers in a lab notebook. If it isn't communicated (with peers, the public, policy makers) it isn't science. Addressing the distortion of science and attempting to explain that distortion (and explain the science clearly and honestly) is part of the job of a scientist (and of an educator, which I also am). "Can I just clear something up? You seem to be labelling Sweatman a skeptic/denier. At the very least it looks like guilt by association. Is this true?" No, not at all. Hugh is not climate change skeptic. "Do you think it's appropriate to vent your spleen here. Surely the review process was the correct place for this? I guess I'm talking professionally here. As an individual you have every right to say what you want, where you want, however you want to say it." Fair point. My view is that this post-publication review is part of the review process; how the broader field discusses and decides "collectively" about the veracity of the findings and arguments in a paper. I think the internet, eg, blogging, is becoming a big part of this. Not so much in coral reef science but certainly in climate change science and other areas. One thing the skeptic are right about: peer-review is pretty dang flawed. A lot of crap gets through and a lot of good science doesn't (often for idealogical reasons). "One final question. Have you told Sweatman you're airing your opinion of his work publically on a blog? Maybe he has a right to reply here?" Yes certainly. We have discussed it a bit by email and he just posted a response at climate shifts. He is certainly able to respond here. -
John Bruno at 11:39 AM on 14 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
Hello Humanity Rules, yes that would be accurate. You can go read my long appendix about potential sources of bias (PLoS One is open access). And note in this post I stated; "Regardless, I agree site selection biases, both then and now, complicate long-term trend interpretation." "Given your robust criticism of Sweatman’s position here does this mean you now deny the possibility of this being the case? " of course not. "I’m curious to know whether you do see a step change in the data at the onset of AIMS and what your explanation for it would be?" I don't about a "step change" but there is obviously a reduction that coincided with the advent of the AIMS surveys. Why? I don't know. But I agree with Hugh that it could be due to the change in methodology (go see my extended post on this at climate shifts where I discuss this in detail). My beef isn't about whether there is a step change, if so what caused it, etc. It is about what the GBR looked like before people, ie, what is the baseline. I don't think reef state in 1986 represented the baseline. Make sense? -
Marcus at 11:37 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
but Mozart, ethanol is only one source of CO2 mitigation. An electric powered bus carrying 30 people-even if the electricity were supplied from coal-would generate as little as 1% of the CO2 that would be generated by 30 cars plying the same route-& for a fraction of the cost required to run a car, or diesel fueled bus over the same distance. So whilst there would be an initial upfront cost for the infrastructure needed for a fleet of electric buses, the various savings (both societal & individual) would more than compensate for those costs in the mid-term. Also, its been my experience that the free market has done more to promote food shortages & high prices than a pursuit of ethanol (especially as ethanol/bio-diesel can easily be generated from the crop *waste*). -
villabolo at 11:36 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
$20 trillion in damages by 2100 and $70 trillion by 2200??? The US GDP is approximately $14 trillion per year and $74 trillion for the entire world. I think AGW is likely to cause a mass deflation in the world's economy in the decades to follow. Did this report even try to take positive feedback loops into consideration like the Arctic ice cap collapse and the massive disruptions it will cause? Or were their estimates simplistic projections based on present damage? In my opinion we won't even get past 600+ ppm due to economic collapse. The US is not likely to have a federal government by 2100 and the world will be lucky to have a feudal fiefdom by 2200. -
Marcus at 11:29 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Do you support Dr. Pielke's position on hurricanes?" Sorry, but how is that even relevant? Whether or not we support Pielke's position on Hurricanes has absolutely no bearing on his position regarding your misuse of his papers on your list. He has been very polite in telling you-on more than one occasion-that his papers do not say what you claim they say, yet still you use them in your list. Are you calling him a liar? Are you calling him ignorant? Come on, Poptech, don't avoid the question: did Pielke effectively tell you that his papers do not say what you're claiming they say? -
Marcus at 11:26 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"What is considered "quality research" is subjective." Well, with that one line, you've basically *failed* Science 101. Not only that, but you've also proven that any claims about how you've confirmed all the papers on your list cannot be taken seriously-as you clearly wouldn't know "Quality Research" if it punched you in the nose. In fact, most reputable Journals have very clear & objective rules for what defines *quality* research-& Beck's paper fails on pretty much every count. Yet still it got accepted by E&E. Also, what does Beck's paper qualifications have to do with anything? All you've done is proven my original point, that the guy lacked any practical research experience & is most *definitely* not an expert in Atmospheric Chemistry. Indeed, I'd argue that my own qualifications & background gives me *more* authority to speak on atmospheric chemistry than the qualifications of Beck. -
pbjamm at 11:22 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @149 Yes/No are not the only possible answers here. After reading through the response by Emanual linked by JMurphy@147 I think the most honest answer is "I dont know." It appears that Emanual and Pilke could both be right since they are talking about two different measures. -
Meet The Denominator
villabolo - Ah, yes, sampling - a wonderful technique. I tried that on Googling 'anthropogenic "global warming"' applying only to biology, chemistry, and physics - no patents, no citations. I got 19,600 results. Reading five of the first 10 pages returned, I found only 1 (~2%) that did not attribute recent warming to anthropogenic causes, and another 1 (again, ~2%) that found it difficult to distinguish natural from anthropogenic causes. All of the results I looked at discussed global warming and anthropogenic causes thereof. PopTech - the consensus indicates that, while there are a few objections to AGW, the mass of people looking at the problem do not agree. There are definitely people who agree with your outlook - but they are the vast minority. There are always folks who disagree with the consensus (such as this one, or this). The existence of people who disagree with well established results and what is quite frankly established science does not invalidate established science, but is rather a commentary on the delightful perversity of humankind. -
mozart at 10:50 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
"The choice of discount rate is rather subjective, and a case can certainly be made that the 1.4% value used in the Stern Review is reasonable. However, those who believe a 1.4% discount rate is too low can put more stock in the IPI study, which considered discount rates ranging from 2% to 5%. 3% seems to be the most widely-used value." The discount rate is not subjective. Nor is it emotional..."future generations" etc. It is the alternative return we give up, when we apply resources to global warming, that could, for example, be applied to expanding food production. When we look at the resources applied to ethanol, for example, these expenditures have to be questioned. Forty percent of our corn crop assigned to a fuel, which would be non economic in the absence of subsidies. In the meantime natural gas, which would cut CO2 emissions by 29% versus oil, receives no support. The most practical and effective thing we can do in the USA, is to convert our fleets to natural gas over a 15 year period. Yet that receives almost no support, as gas is a carbon based fuel. But there is a limit to the speed we can convert to non carbon forms of energy. And a cost. Make that cost too high and economic activity will be threatened. The complex linkages and dependencies we have in our now global economy, are at least as fragile and delicate as those in our eco system. Food shortages and famine are just a perturbation away. We have to be wise about all this. -
villabolo at 10:24 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Please Poptech, reveal the 'validity' of your 850 "peer reviewed" papers by citing just one on a specific subject like "Global Cooling" since the late 1990s. Then have it subjected to critical analysis. Repeat the process 4 times with other subjects, chosen at random, and see how many of them withstand critical analysis. Here's what I'm getting at. Let's imagine a person of supposed confidence, in a work environment, makes 50 specific statements on a wide variety of work related issues. Then, upon actually investigating 5 of those 50 statements, chosen at random, you find out that they're either damn lies or half truths. Would you even bother to investigate the other 45 statements? Intuitively you'll know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if 5 statements are false then the other 45 have a very high probability of also being false. Falsification is a scientific proceedure. What attempts have you made at falsification? -
pbellin at 09:59 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I gave up on reading all these comments, back and forth about the numbers of papers supporting or not supporting AGW. I fail to see why this criterion measures anything. (See Malcolm Gladwell's discussion of college rankings in the Feb 14 and 21 2011 New Yorker. The metrics challenged in this post are probably not reflective of anything, since it is not clear what is being measured.) In any case, the most recent (2009)Census figure for BS and above is 60 million (you can get the spreadsheet here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/tables.html . -
HumanityRules at 09:55 AM on 14 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
I had a thought about the science here. I’m not an expert on reefs obviously but I do know how to look at a graph. In your fig 1a there may as well be a large flashing red arrow with “STEP CHANGE” written next to it. If you took the mean and sd of the pre-AIMS and AIMS data separately they look like they’d be very different. How the trends for each period related to the overall trend on the graph I think would need explaining also. Sweatman in his paper suggests in your 2007 paper you acknowledged the possibility that there may be data artifacts, this is what he wrote. “The apparent abrupt drop in average coral cover on the GBR in 1986 is most probably due to theinclusion of AIMS monitoring data with cover estimates from small selected patches of reef from small-scale studies. Bruno and Selig (2007) identified these as potential biases in their analyses.” Would it be accurate of Sweatman to say in 2007 you acknowledged this as a possible source of bias in the data? Given your robust criticism of Sweatman’s position here does this mean you now deny the possibility of this being the case? I’m curious to know whether you do see a step change in the data at the onset of AIMS and what your explanation for it would be? -
scaddenp at 09:55 AM on 14 February 2011Temp record is unreliable
GISS Temp is the obvious place to start where the papers referencing the methodology method are given. You might like to look at Ned's post above #102 to help you guess whether the hadcrut method (use global average to interpolate) or GISS method (infer for local station analysis) might give best answer for Arctic. -
JMurphy at 09:48 AM on 14 February 2011Temp record is unreliable
RickG, have a look at GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE, J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo -
scaddenp at 09:46 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
the irrefutable fact that E&E is peer-reviewed. When E&E editor gives papers that suit her agenda the "peer-review" of a tobacco science journal, then the term comes to mean something very different for what it means in rest of science (essentially "peer" means someone of same ideological leanings and with complete disrespect for process). This is reflected in way real science (and citation index keepers) treat the journal, and frankly those who publish in it. Peer review was created as a gate-keeper to ensure quality and when a journal repeatedly fails to use it the way intended, then articles will not be considered peer-reviewed by the rest of the community. -
Ron Crouch at 09:23 AM on 14 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
I wonder if Monckton would ignore a bulge in the sidewall of one of his tires knowing full well that he can adapt when (x) it goes flat, but ignore the risks involved such as (y) it goes flat and he narrowly misses running into another car, but (z) he slams into a tree. -
gmb92 at 09:22 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
FYI...PopTech is mainly rehashing the same arguments deconstructed here (warning: politicalforum.com is much more lax with civility, so hold your nose). PopTech TrainWreck Among many things, when requested to provide specific objective criteria for defining "alarm" (such as a value for climate sensitivity), PT dodges and just repeats the same arguments ad nauseum. The only thing to add since then, regarding the political journal Energy & Environment, even postnormal Judy Curry knows this journal does not have a credible peer review process. JC: "His insistence on not even responding to these criticisms leads people to regard him as a crank/crackpot. Based on Part II, he can probably get this published in E&E, but certainly not in any scientific journal of any repute or credibility." PopTech might want to submit his result to E&E, or perhaps the Cato Journal. -
RickG at 09:18 AM on 14 February 2011Temp record is unreliable
I am looking for information on how NASA GISS fills in the gaps on the Arctic temperature grids. I just want a better understanding. Thanks. -
Dennis at 09:13 AM on 14 February 2011Meet The Denominator
This has been a fascinating set of comments. But everyone is missing the obvious: Poptech, when are you going to re-write your list into a scientific study and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal? There's one other document out there that is worthy of this sort of study. That is U.S. Senator James Inhofe's annual list of "scientists" who dispute global warming. I don't know if anyone has taken the time to analyze it completely, but Inhofe's definition of scientist includes people who are, e.g. TV weatherman.
Prev 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 Next
