Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Next
Comments 96151 to 96200:
-
RSVP at 23:14 PM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
...and as far a this thing about oxygen running out... it had to do with the effects on combustion. You do need a certain percentage to get this to happen, although this could lead to more jobs for adjusting carburetors, so maybe its not a problem. -
RSVP at 23:09 PM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
adelady #28 "...relevant only because of current circumstances" Just imagine if Galileo said that to the Inquisition. -
michael sweet at 22:57 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
James Hansen suggests we ask "Would this have happened without AGW". The answer for the Queensland floods is almost certainly not. This flips the question of proof onto the deniers. If we ask do you have certain proof this was caused by AGW the asnwer, as you show, is no. Would 100,000 people have died of lung cancer if they did not smoke? No. Would one person have died of lung cancer if they did not smoke? Not certain. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:29 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
#26, not just "slightly" off topic, very off topic. -
ssilvie at 22:10 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
I agree with the term Climate Change as it fits what we observe. Not everyone will experience "warming" (ie Northern Europe) but everyone will see change. Furthermore, it leaves room for healthy scientific testing of the theory of causes. remember science without debate becomes dogma. Slightly off topic, but related. I wonder why we have not seen a global consensus to limit global population as as well as emissions. The two are surely linked and attempts to limit emissions globally will surely fail without population curbs... -
JMurphy at 21:45 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
If Climate Change is good enough for the IPCC, then it should be acceptable as a term, especially as it encompasses Global Warming - which some people get confused by when they see snow outside their homes ! PS Hear, hear to Stephan Lewandowsky's 'Moderator Response' above, and mactheknife's comment - I would add to the list the belief that so-called skeptics think that it won't happen to or affect them or their families, but will only happen to people in far-off countries whose governments are not looking after them properly anyway (supposedly). As for Australia, is there any extreme that they won't be experiencing there (or haven't experienced yet) during the current season ?!Response: [John Cook] Well, here in Australia, there's no record snowfall at the moment :-) -
adelady at 21:32 PM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
When has climate not changed? Well, there were several million years of unchanging 'snowball earth' - which only just managed to drag itself out, eventually, by the agency of you-guessed-it carbon dioxide and its GHG friends released from volcanoes. This idea that 'climate always changes' has the flavour of confusing weather with climate. Weather changes with sunrise and sunset, the tides, the seasons. Climate never changes until and unless something forces it to change. As for the theory, remember that CC or AGW is "not" the theory. The theory is the science of climate, CC (AGW) is a mere subset of that theory, relevant only because of current circumstances. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 21:32 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Forgot to mention the record heat wave in Sydney and the umpteenth record downpour/floods in Melbourne - for local city-based listeners (who might not know where Mildura is) :) -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 21:10 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
The analogy works for me. I'd suggest giving it more 'oomph' by giving more examples of the past few weeks/months; such as landslides in Brazil, record floods in Sri Lanka, record floods in Pakistan, record rain in the Philippines, coast to coast snow the USA, drought in Africa, floods in Egypt, floods in Europe, drought in China, drought and fires in Russia, temps off the scale for a month in Canada; record heat at Casey in Antarctica preventing planes from landing; almost simultaneous 'inland sea' flooding of Victoria, northern South Australia, southern NT, most of Queensland, parts of northern NSW, north west WA and eastern Tasmania - picking just a few examples off the top of my head :) -
bobashworth at 20:58 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
@13 "I think we all need to consistently use AGW or "Human caused Global Warming" rather than CC. Lets call it what it is. None of the arguments for using CC have convinced me." As a layman I might be missing something, but I always view these two concepts as interlinked. AGW brings about CC. Is this too simple? -
mactheknife at 20:51 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
It is broadly accepted nowadays that smoking is a health hazard and tobacco companies have been forced to put warning messages on packets. Smoking is banned inside public places. However for years misinformation was peddled by vested interests. Below are common strawman arguments peddled by climate change deniers and vested intgerests but phrased in terms of smoking. Drawing comparisons between smoking and climate in this way may be helpful in getting people to see how misguided some of these arguments are. I have included just a few of the associated global warming strawman arguments. There are many more. 1. I know someone who is 90, has smoked heavily all his life and he is as healthy as anyone I know. So if smoking is as dangerous as they say it is why is he alright? There cannot be a direct link. There must be other factors leading to cancer so till we are 100% sure we should not ban anything. This is similar to the argument that how can it be that CO2 increases but some years temps are lower. You cant prove there is warming. 2. Anyway smoke is a naturally occurring substance in the environment. It has been around for thousands of years. Actually fire and smoke is necessary for some plants and seeds to grow in parts of Australia. It is vital for them.- This is similar to the argument that climate has been changing for thousands of years so don’t worry and as CO2 is natural it cant be bad. 3. Waterborne diseases are the largest culprit of death and morbidity in the third world. This puts the whole thing in perspective. There are far more influential factors in causes of death than smoking. Actually old age appears to be correlated with death more so than smoking so what is this nonsense about banning smoking! This similar to saying that there are other greenhouse gases so it is not just CO2! So CO2 is not a problem. 4. They reckon the poisonous chemicals in cigarettes can cause emphysema and bronchitis, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke and cancer. Hearing and vision loss, Arthritis, Diarrhoea, Wrinkles, Peptic ulcers, pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney and liver damage, oesophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, and throat cancers, sudden infant death syndrome. Counter argument: Yes but these conditions have many other causes and people who never smoke get these as well. So there is a failure to prove actual causation. Prove that CO2 causes warming because so many other things influence weather events. 5. By current estimates, tobacco use causes 440,000 deaths per year and costs about $157 billion in health–related losses. An estimated 46,000 adults smoked in 2001. On average, men who smoke cut their lives short by 13.2 years, and female smokers lose 14.5 years. Counter argument: Where is the hard empirical evidence for this? No one knows when they are going to die so how can anyone say their life is shortened by this or that amount? What about the guy who lived over 100? Was his life shortened by 13.2 years? Not likely. This is like saying the models cannot predict detailed scenarios for small regions so how can we take them seriously. And of course these storms could have happened anyway. -
funglestrumpet at 20:35 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Three points: 1 (Pedantic - sorry!) "The guy down the street who’s now dying of lung cancer before he had a chance to quit, did he get killed by tobacco?" He has yet to die, so it should be "WILL he get killed by tobacco?" 2 You cannot use this line of reasoning to demonstrate that the warming being experienced is anthropogenic in origin, only that the extreme events are caused by warming, whatever the cause. 3 Related to 2 above, we need to draw people's attention to the fact that, whatever the cause, we can reduce the greenhouse effect, and thus its contribution to the current warming, by reducing the production of greenhouse gases. You could add two final questions: Regardless of the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change, doesn't it make sense to do whatever we can to combat it? Or does the risk of countless deaths from food and water shortages with wars over what little there will be, mass migrations with the collapse of current geopolitical structures, not to mention several meters of sea level rise etc. etc. seem like a good thing for future members of your family? -
RSVP at 20:34 PM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
Marcus 24 You refer to this grand old theory, Climate Change, with capital letters, which in the most simplest terms means that all things being equal, the Earth's climate is modulated by the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, it does this with or without mankind's help, as it has for eons and eons, given that in reality it is a natural process...ironically. (exception being in that of course there was a time much earlier when things were driven by other factors, because of other unknowns, but these conveniently fall into "all things were not equal bucket"). You may notice that, so far, I havent said anything relevant, and if so, it is because I have simply paraphrased the entire Climate Change theory, which on the surface is an ambiguous platform upon with only "experts" are allowed to stand. For instance, when has climate not been changing in some way locally or otherwise, etc.?? -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:29 PM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP@25 You were not put on trial for the standard of your English. Daniel was asking a valid question as it appeared that you did not realise that what you had actually written was inconsistent with your subsequent explanation. If your English is poor, that is no problem, but I would suggest in that case you avoid word games, and stick to explaining your position clearly. -
hohygen at 20:08 PM on 10 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
A series of arctic ice coverage http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (and ice volume: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php) would have been great. -
RSVP at 20:00 PM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
Re: Daniel Bailey #23 After what you said here, please note post 14 "Dikran Marsupial #14 RSVP@13 Ah I see, word games" On the one hand, I get accused for word games, and on the other, must stand trial for my English. -
hohygen at 19:58 PM on 10 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
Great work. This will making climate communication easier. On comment on normalisation: From past experience with the temperaturedatasets: As far as I know do they use different normal period as reference. I cannot see any part of your text above commenting on this. My question is: Do you use the agencies normal period, og do you adjust the series to a common period? -
iana at 19:48 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
"Your comments are how you say them are why you will not convince the public because they have learnt through thousands of years of human proganda just how to smell it." Can someone translate this please. -
adelady at 19:38 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Climate change wasn't invented by conservatives. It was *adopted* by them as the preferable terminology. 'Global Warming' was first publicised by Wally Broecker. I much prefer climate change because it encompasses unexpected regional effects - like WACCy weather. -
HumanityRules at 19:31 PM on 10 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
And where is the temperature differential? Where is the lag? You don't seem to capture the dynamic changes between the ocean and the atmosphere that you describe in #63. The ocean seems just to become a very big extension of the atmosphere. -
thingadonta at 19:23 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
There is another angry beast-human exageration. And you are certainly stocking this fire. Your comments are how you say them are why you will not convince the public because they have learnt through thousands of years of human proganda just how to smell it. "And what is almost equally certain is that they would not have happened at all, or would have been more benign, if we hadn’t been emitting all that CO2 for the last 100 years. Floods have been happening in Queensland for millions/thousands of years so how can you say first up 'they wouldn have happened at all' and then qualify it by 'would have been more benign? This is typical propaganda writing. Floods in 1800s in Queensland were worse. It would be more correct to say "floods and frequency in Queensland are much as they were in the last few hundred years of human records, however there is the possiblity that recent warmth, whether natural or humna caused, has excerbated the degree of recent flooding" Th same goes for cyclones. Strong ones occurred in Queensland in the 1910s and 1930s, so it is incorrect, like the Premier to say it is unprecedented. It is also true that the devestating bushfires in Victoria were almost certainyl made worse by academic-backed green policies, such as not allowing residents to clear vegetation adjacent to their land, and the usual incompetence of government warnings and propaganda about how to deal with nature. I could go on, but as I said, you need to frame your words more carefully to convince the public, they aren't stupid and dont like being subjected to an endless stream of propaganda.Moderator Response: Thank you for attacking that straw man because it means I should add something along the following lines: "Bush fires have been part of natural Australia for millennia. But just because they were always caused by lightning for 10000 years doesn't mean arsonists don't exist now. Likewise, just because there have always been floods and cyclones doesn't mean their frequency or severity hasn't been increased by climate change." By the way, the peer reviewed literature is about as different from propaganda as a Shakespearean love sonnet is from internet pornography. The pornography of propaganda is instead practiced mainly by those who reject science that doesn't suit their ideological or commercial needs: This fact renders my analogy with tobacco doubly apt, as a quick glance at Naomi Oreskes' "Merchants of doubt" will clarify. [SL] -
y-not at 18:27 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
AGW can get you away from talking about weather completely as the issue is much bigger than just climate. We need to talk about adding heat to the whole biosphere including oceans. CC is just one of the effects of AGW. I think human beings need to own the problem hence the A in AGW rather than externalize it CC. CC also allows anyone to put a positive spin on the problem, as "change" can be "good". AGW is confronting for an audience while CC is just interesting.... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:26 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Steve Some thoughts. Who is your audience? When this podcast goes out, who do you think will listen/read/respond? A phrase like 'the heart of probabilistic causation'! Is this aimed at your undergrad audience or post grads? or at the guys down at the Pub? How you use language massively determines how and whether people will assimilate what you are saying. My take on your piece is that you are trying to highlight the need for a 'probabilistic causation' mindset when assessing Tobaco, Clinate Change etc. The need to not use black & white thinking, is/isn't, will/won't thinking. Rather that we need to look at questions like this in terms of 'what are the odds', 'is this likely enough to act on'. Humans use probability thinking in a wide range of daily activities - will it rain? But we still don't handle probability well because we still want to come to a black/white conclusion. How likely is it to rain? Will I bing the washing in? Rather than 'does the probability of rain justify bringing the washing in. Or should I just bring in 2 pairs of socks?' So what is the purpose of the podcast? To try and cut through the 'probabilistic causation' jumble to provide people with conclusion about a subject. Or to provide a meta-discussion about 'how should we go about thinking about a topic like this?'. Are you advocating for Climate Change. Or advocating for shades-of-grey thinking? -
Docshiva at 18:09 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
I like the way the articles teaches its point. It's a general point being presented, but the references to Australia, though timely, are not so general. Perhaps examples from elsewhere in time and geography to point out that the logic in question is universal - not only applicable to the Australian tragedies. I also closed this post with a suggestion of how the references might be made more universal. Another thing to reconsider might be the close. The beast-poking metaphor does not reinforce the point made; it comes out of nowhere. It's tidy, but unrelated. It could belong anywhere in any rational discussion of climate change. I wouldn't be cute or trite there. I think it might work to just think of a brief statement that very simply makes the point your analogy spoke to. Something like, "Any piece of evidence taken out of context can be argued with. It's the momentous weight of thousands of related and repeatable pieces of evidence that amass into definitive proof: We now know definitely that smoking strongly increases the risk of cancer. We now know definitively that climate change strongly increases the risk of severe storms and other disasters." If you keep the Australian references only, I think the close could provide general relevance. For example, one could refer to "....storms and other disasters; disasters such as we've just seen in Austalia." -
HumanityRules at 18:08 PM on 10 February 2011A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
Ok Glenn in #69 were does thermal inertia come into play? -
y-not at 18:05 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Stephan - I think the lung cancer example is useful just for the reason you use it, namely a statistical analogy with some emotion attached. I'm also with Peter in Post 5. I think we all need to consistently use AGW or "Human caused Global Warming" rather than CC. Lets call it what it is. None of the arguments for using CC have convinced me. Furthermore it is not just the atmosphere which is immediately important to humans that is warming, but also the oceans that are impacted, soaking up most of the heat and changing ecologically. We are talking about much more than just climate change.Moderator Response: I am in two minds about AGW vs CC. The W means that every blizzard is automatically categorized as negative evidence. It isn't, but that's what people do. The C is a bit better in that regard because it subsumes a broader range of outcomes. On the other hand, CC was invented by Republicans because it sounds warm and fuzzy. Hence I like neither much. [SL] -
Albatross at 18:04 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Here are the findings from a new paper which speaks to severe events over Australia by Gallant and Karoly (2010, Journal of Climate): "Australian extremes are examined starting from 1911, which is the first time a broad-scale assessment of Australian temperature extremes has been performed prior to 1957. Over the whole country, the results show an increase in the extent of hot and wet extremes and a decrease in the extent of cold and dry extremes annually and during all seasons from 1911 to 2008 at a rate of between 1% and 2% per decade. These trends mostly stem from changes in tropical regions during summer and spring. There are relationships between the extent of extreme maximum temperatures, precipitation, and soil moisture on interannual and decadal time scales that are similar to the relationships exhibited by variations of the means. However, the trends from 1911 to 2008 and from 1957 to 2008 are not consistent with these relationships, providing evidence that the processes causing the interannual variations and those causing the longer-term trends are different." A similar extreme weather index in the USA has also found a positive trend in extreme weather events since the early seventies. See here. -
malamuddy at 17:59 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Another way to say much the same thing is this: While smoking cannot be directly linked to any particular early death, the frequency of such deaths will be increased by smoking and: while none of the world wide extreme weather in the last twelve months can be directly linked to global warming, we can say that the frequency of such events will be increased by global warming. -
Albatross at 17:56 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Gary @3, How tropical storms will respond to warmer ocean temperatures is complex and a field of much attention. The latest, and probably best research suggests that there will probably be fewer storms, but stronger storms. How this will accumulate metrics such as storm count (which you showed) and as the ACE index is unclear. The literature does find an discernible increase in extreme precipitation events and extreme highs and droughts. I can provide references if you wish-- SKs is also a great resource of course. There is, unfortunately, not going to be a Pearl Harbour moment which shocks even the most ardent denialist or 'skeptic' into reality-- AGW is very much like a slowly progressing cancer. The concern is that the cancer (AGW) might metastasize. We all need to constantly remind ourselves that many of the scenarios predicted by the IPCC are often for say 2080-2100-- we are a very long way of from that obviously, so do not expect the worst to be obvious now. In fact, some features have only become discernible relatively recently, in the last 10 years or so. Look at it this way, you are currently smoking two packs a day and feel pretty good (so you do not really care about the fellow who has just been diagnosed with lung cancer a continent away and who cannot afford suitable treatment), but there are worrying signs-- a hacking cough (Arctic ice loss), shortness of breath when exercising (pH decline and loss of plankton) etc.. Your doctor is telling us that we need to steadily cut down the number of cigarettes you smoke to say one pack a day and then half a pack etc. But your mom is saying it is all a hoax and that the doctor is being "alarmist", she has smoked for 50 years and she is just fine.... Now what is the responsible, prudent and sensible approach...listening to your mum (who has been incredibly lucky and is an outlier) or your doctor? Or do you defer taking action until there is a tumour or you have a heart attack? Oh, and do not forget that you smoking two packs a day affects others too via second-hand smoke. Anyhow, I understand that it is not a perfect analogy, but I hope that it resonates with you. i for one do not wish for AGW to be a real issue, but I am not going to ignore the evidence and science, no matter how scary or inconvenient. -
rockytom at 17:28 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
How about adding that 150,000 annual figure from #6 to the statement. SL, your post is very well done, point made. We need more "gotcha" type statements! -
Chemware at 17:05 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
@3 garythompson: Not quite. The frequency of more intense storms is predicted to increase. Different models disagree on the overall frequency: some say up, some say down; see: What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?Moderator Response: Indeed. Hence my use of the word stronger in connection with the cyclone. I am not suggesting it could not have occurred on its own (it most definitely could have), just that its strength--and it was strong--might have been lower in the absence of climate change. [SL] -
iana at 17:04 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
@ garythompson: With all due respect, he was talking about frequency of extreme events. That is not what is shown in your graph. @sgmuller: The analogy is valid - the increased death rate from extreme weather events is also pretty gruesome. -
sgmuller at 16:53 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
Sorry, but I really don't think this kind of analysis is helpful. You are grasping at straws to suggest that extreme weather and AGW are in the same league as smoking and lung-cancer. Walk into any public hospital and you can see people dying from cigarettes and a tar filled lung makes for a great anti-smoking ad. I think that we are all tempted to draw those kind of conclusions prematurely because the established proofs of AGW are just so boring. I mean, who really gives a rodents rectum that winters are warming faster than summers, that nights are warming faster than days, that the poles are warming faster than the tropics? Certainly not the editors of our daily newspapers or the producers of our current affairs shows. They are all looking for big, exciting, life-threatening proofs. And cyclone Yasi and the Grantham floods were certainly all of those things. So we are tempted to oversell the case that Global Warming causes more severe cyclones, floods and droughts. I think we're setting ourselves up for a fall here. We just have to try a bit harder to explain the established, if boring, proofs.Moderator Response: Walk into the peer-reviewed literature and you will see that the WHO estimates 150,000 fatalities annually now from climate change. So the analogy is apt on that basis. It is also true that increasing extreme events were predicted long ago, so I don't think it is grasping at straws to link their increased frequency--in the aggregate but not individual instances--to climate change. This is a straightforward application of a counterfactual notion of causality which is widely accepted among philosophers and cognitive scientists. [SL] -
Peter Offenhartz at 16:50 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
I have an intense dislike of the phrase "climate change," but I have no trouble with the phrase "global warming." "Climate change" is vague to the point of meaninglessness, while "global warming" is real and quantifiable. Please substitute! And you should also provide the age at which each of your smoking exemplars died. That will help show that these are what the medical establishments call "premature deaths." Sorry about the testiness. But "climate change" was a phrase invented by the deniers to avoid having to say the planet is warming. They substituted something vague for something that can be measured. And they seem to have won the public relations battle for the way the public thinks. All of us should avoid the vagueness of "climate change" and try to stick to the facts. -
Alexandre at 16:37 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
I do not agree with the sentence "They all died prematurely because of tobacco". If we cannot link each single event with a cause, how can we say that every single one was caused by it? Statistically, it's clear that tobacco causes cancer and GW causes more extreme weather events. But as suggested in the text, Nat King Cole could be one of those rare cases of lung cancer that are not related to smoking. Or am I missing something?Moderator Response: Yes, I may have to clarify that. It is clear that on average all smokers die younger (that's the point of having an average; viz. to describe the entire distribution, and the mean for smokers is lower). I'll find some suitable wording, stay tuned. [SL] -
garythompson at 16:35 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
All due respect to the victims of the recent floods and cyclones in Australia, I thought the frequency of this type of activity has reduced. here is a graph from that web site
Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please use the img width="450" src tag when posting images. Thanks! -
Tor B at 16:30 PM on 10 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Michael Sweet (8 & 25): I can now hear that my "anecdotal [data]...suggests the height of the ‘record lows’ bar will increase" is a claim of sorts, and I acknowledge that trolls are frequently requiring "more data please" (actually, "more data or I'll take my toys home"). Because I work with (regulate) about 400 clients' financial instruments that range from a few thousand dollars to a hundred million dollars (totaling about $500,000,000), adding 2 or 3 percent more clients would make me clueless as to whether ratios would stay put or change noticeably, even drastically. (The "right" 10 new clients could triple the total.) Being minimally familiar with actual counts of record highs and lows, but understanding (from reading Weather Underground Tropical Weather blog after Dr. Masters writes an AGW/ACC article) there can be hundreds of records set in a few weeks, I'm not convinced that the three months don't matter. After looking at the NCDC month average temperature anomaly maps which show vaguely 1.5 months worth of potentially record setting cold and 1 month of potentially record setting hot, I suspect the 2.04:1 ratio (hi:lo records) won't change much, but I still don't know. It would be much much better for the graph to actually cover the full decade to dispel my concerns. In November 2009, it made sense for the graph to cover a spot less than 60 years; today it does not make sense. It cannot possibly be too much work for the originators of the graph to add in the "missing" data. The maps are useful for making an hypothesis (the ratio won't change much); they are not reliable in and of themselves to determine if or how much the 2.04:1 ration will change. John Cook apparently cares about USA data sets, for he posted the two graphs above, and I am concerned about how the one graph might be perceived by Climate Ostriches and curious what the full decade ratio is. I don't know where to find the data and I'm not confident I would utilize it appropriately if I did. It doesn't mean I don't care. I'm deeply concerned about Arctic sea ice loss (among other climate science concerns), and when naysaying co-workers respond with "Antarctica ..." or "Snow on the ground in 49 states," I see them as ignoring reality. So when I heard you say (paraphrased in my head) "It cannot be cold in the US because on average it's hot everywhere, you SOB" well, you can see the parallel. In the DeepClimate blog on Lisbon, a small piece of the discussion centered on how we get so used to warding off pseudo-sceptics that we assume the worst in others and begin to behave in ways we're not proud of. I can succumb to it too. My apologies. And thanks for yours. -
Steve L at 16:28 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
I liked this. But my question is, how about a different extreme event? Will it be meaningless to ask for certainty regarding the ice free Arctic summer when it comes? I think when it happens, it will be certainly* because of AGW, and saying so won't be meaningless. (*Though perhaps not 'absolutely certain'.)Moderator Response: Interesting thought. The ice free arctic is indeed something that could not occur on its own (i.e., without a strong forcing, however caused), so yes, this is a good example. Of course, delaying action by waiting for that absolute proof will just heighten the burden (financial and otherwise) to be carried by people then. [SL] -
adelady at 16:06 PM on 10 February 2011Smoking, cancer and climate change
I suppose it would be too depressing to mention Yul Brynner urging other people to not smoke when it was too late for him. Not quite the message you want to get across. But I do like using smoking as a demonstration of probability that everyone understands. -
Jeff Freymueller at 15:53 PM on 10 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
Dealing with all sorts of different file formats is a problem for professional scientists, not just citizen scientists! There is nothing like providing code to read the files to help make analysis easier, so thanks for making yours available. -
keithpickering at 15:24 PM on 10 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
I should also mention: I've found that Nino4 has slightly higher correlations with global temps than Nino34 (as you're using) when best lags are used ... you might want to try both. -
keithpickering at 15:21 PM on 10 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
You should also include TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, in your time series suite. For recent values, PMOD observations are best. If you want to go farther back than 1978, the reconstruction of Lean et. al. can be found on Climate Explorer. The biggest problem with the Lean reconstruction is that it doesn't model the very deep decline seen at the end of cycle 23 very well. Which means that for recent values, PMOD observations are still better than any reconstruction. It is possible to create a fairly seamless composite dataset (PMOD 1978-present, Lean further back) by regressing Lean against PMOD during the overlap period 1978-2000, i.e., before cycle 23 reached its peak. You can then modify Lean's reconstruction by the regression slope and intercept (r>.96) and get a fairly unified monthly dataset going back to 1882. -
muoncounter at 14:39 PM on 10 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Riddle me this: Years Wings are in the finals: 2009, 2008, 2002, 1998, 1997, 1995, 1966 ... most of these are el Nino years! As far as Texas is concerned, like the man used to say, 'if you don't have aoilwellwindmill, get one!' -
Daniel Bailey at 14:15 PM on 10 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
Michiganders are a little spoiled by da Wings. The expectation is to appear in the Stanley Cup Finals every year. They rarely disappoint us. Unlike our politicos. Given we are da motor capital of da world, any mention of reducing auto usage (to reduce carbon footprints) or driving smaller SUV's is met with the same reaction as saying "we should be building windmills instead of drilling oil wells" to a Texan. "String 'em up!" The Yooper -
Matthew at 14:11 PM on 10 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Not 2 percent, but 2 ppm. -
Matthew at 14:06 PM on 10 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Id say since each year goes up 2 percent, so we avg near 391 ppm this year, 393 ppm in 2012, 395 ppm 2013, 397 ppm 2014, 399 ppm 2015. I think 2016 we make it. 2000 369.40 0.12 2001 371.07 0.12 2002 373.17 0.12 2003 375.78 0.12 2004 377.52 0.12 2005 379.76 0.12 2006 381.85 0.12 2007 383.71 0.12 2008 385.57 0.12 2009 387.35 0.12 2010 389.78 0.12 In May 2010 we came near 393, 2009 made it to 390, 2008 made it to 388 ppm. This is the months. Id say 2011 395 ppm 2012 397 ppm 2013 399 ppm 2014 401 ppm -
muoncounter at 14:03 PM on 10 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
#24: "Teddy Ballgame's head" That would be 406; not 'til 2014 by a long shot. By now our Aussie friends must think that Yanks speak in code. -
MattJ at 13:57 PM on 10 February 2011Voicing values and climate change
This new blog sounds like a great idea. But we are running out of time, with CO2 killing off deep ocean phytoplankton at the rate it is killing it. We really don't HAVE "several months" to wait. Rather, we should have been at this point (having the blog) years ago. If we don't cut back CO2 drastically really fast, the cockroaches will inherit the earth. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:33 PM on 10 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
@ 23 Given the 2010 Amazon drought, another year of oceanic warming (especially in the polar oceans)...I say yes. Followed by a 50/50 shot at 400 in 2012. Speaking of 400, who's turn is it to watch Teddy Ballgame's head anyway? The Yooper -
muoncounter at 13:25 PM on 10 February 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
#111: Reply to briago1's point #5 (Arctic ice melt) on Arctic icemelt is natural.
Prev 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Next
