Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 Next
Comments 96451 to 96500:
-
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. -
muoncounter at 13:24 PM on 10 February 2011Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
From here. "the ice cap extents over the last 60 years the north pole all but completly melts EVERY YEAR." Sorry, Briago, but that's just not true; the Arctic polar ice does not all but completely melt each year. The NSIDC has excellent data; see their October 2010 press release for a recent summary. One of the great things about SkS is the information here is based on research and data. In short, facts. Most of the posters also strive to substantiate their claims with evidence. If you are serious about the subject of climate change (and you should be), please put your opinions on hold for a while, look around and learn. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:15 PM on 10 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
Thanks, Kelly! I visit your site daily during the Arctic melt season; weekly at this time of year. Highly recommended. The Yooper -
MattJ at 13:10 PM on 10 February 2011The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Although I am impressed at the quality of the Guide, and the zeal of the translators, I really don't think additional translations are really going to help very much. It is not the kind of effort we really need, since the perps who are destroying our environment are perfectly competent at reading English. However, the two languages that are most likely to do some good are 1) Russian, since Putin and Medvedev are eager to sell as much oil as they can, and 2) Mandarin Chinese, since it was the Chinese who sabotaged Copenhagen, together with the Indians. Of course, the Indians are a perfect example of those who already have the science in a language they can understand -- and they choose to ignore it. I am sure most people here in this forum realize that English IS "the international language of India". They even prefer it over their own language when communicating many fellow Indians since it avoids the political implications of forcing non-Hindi speakers to speak Hindi. Now of those two languages, I think Mandarin is actually the higher priority. Just think of the publicity for the cause when we discover the Chinese Government is blocking access to the guide because the evidence is so damning against them! -
muoncounter at 13:01 PM on 10 February 2011CO2 is not increasing
Delightful news: Jan 2011 CO2 = 391 ppm; an annual increase of 2.7 ppm/year. Yes, the recession is over.
Do we break 395 this year?
-
michael sweet at 12:57 PM on 10 February 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Briago1, Welcome to Skeptical Science. There is a search function in the upper left corner. Please post each of your points in the appropriate thread. I suggest you read the start here button before you proceed. For your question #2 you say "I have no idea how much more is released by other mamals, fish, birds, etc. On the whole 29GT does not sound like much compared to the overall living population of the animal kingdom." If you read the post at the top of this page that data is graphed for you to read. All the information needed to be informed about that subject is included. It appears that you have made no effort to inform yourself, including not reading the post you are responding to. Why did you make such a flaming post? If you want to learn read some of the material. If you seek to disrupt, please go elsewhere. Does anyone know why are there so many trolls this week? -
michael sweet at 12:47 PM on 10 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Tor B, You said in 4 "“Very cold” October suggests lots of records may have been set; “unseasonable cool December” suggests no more than a few records set". That seems to me like a claim that lots of cold records were set in those months. I do not think your data sources are very reliable for such a claim. I am sorry I referred to the global temperatures, I did not realize you only cared about the USA. Fortunately the site I mentioned has the data for both. At least we both have a reliable data source now. It is my experience that if I have a 117 month data set and I add three months there is little change in the data. This holds up even if all the last three months are extreme, which they were not (one warm, two cold, none hot or frigid). You also suggest that there will be little change. It is a lot of trouble to finish out the data properly. Arguing about good data is a method deniers use to delay action. I am sorry if I responded sharply to your post, there have been an unusual number of trolls lately. -
muoncounter at 12:38 PM on 10 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
#93: "ongoing furphy that the modest warming of the 17th through 19th centuries *caused* the growth in human population." Especially when the furphy (great word, that) is promoted by the same people who cry foul when anyone points out that temperature increase correlates with atmospheric CO2 increase. That's unacceptable; 'correlation isn't cause!' But warming correlation with population is a valid cause? Does denial require the ability to be hypocritical or is it an after market add-on? -
Spencer Weart at 12:19 PM on 10 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
There's a peer-reviewed paper that matches the temperature curve by combining volcanoes, El Nino, Sunspots, and anthropogenic emissions: Lean & Rind (2009), Geophysical Research Letters 36, L15708. See http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm#model -
Briago1 at 12:13 PM on 10 February 2011Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Just a couple thoughts: 1) I read a statement about as the atmosphere warms that will release more carbon dioxide from the oceans making the atmosphere even warmer. This can not be the case otherwise if the atmosphere ever got a little warm, it would be doomed to continue to heat up. Since we have had ice ages and hot "ages", the plant would not have made it to now. 2) The discussion seems to be centered around human activity releasing around 29GT of CO2 annually. However per epa.gov human breathing generates 2.3lbs per average person per day. (2.3lb) x (6,000,000,000 people on the planet) / (2000 lb/ton) x (365 days per year) = 2.5GT CO2 annually. Also, from wiki.answers.com (less reliable source), domesticated animals produce 6GT, and insects produce 48GT. I have no idea how much more is released by other mamals, fish, birds, etc. On the whole 29GT does not sound like much compared to the overall living population of the animal kingdom. 3) For such a small fractional increase (3.8%) compared to the overall amount of CO2 in circulation, a measly 4% increase in plant/algae life would more than make up for the difference. 4) Ice cores tell you nothing about reaction. I keep reading that ice cores show in increase in temperature after an increase in CO2 (this is debatable, but I'll skip that). This tid bit is then being used to say that since CO2 has risen x amount in 30 years, that now we are going to have a temperature rise in the next decade. Ice cores have a resolution in the 1000s (or tens of thousands) of years, not 10. The problem is that the ice core is giving you an average over that 1000 years. Within a given 10 years the CO2 could have been three times higher than it is now, but you can't know because you only have an average over 1000 years. The variations we seen now could have been going on for all of history, and you will NOT see it in ice cores. Remember that you have no source to see a snapshot in time from history until we started keeping regular interval written data, and even that data is questionable as the sampling location evironment is usually not stable over long durations. You only have long duration averages which tell you nothing about how the planet would react from a 2 decade departure from an average developed over the last 12 decades of real data. 5) I read about how the ice caps are melting. Well if you look at the data of the ice cap extents over the last 60 years the north pole all but completly melts EVERY YEAR. I don't care if ice sheets are breaking off the north pole, it happens every year. The south pole, it a little different, the western sheet does seem to be shrinking some, but the easter sheet (4 x larger) is reported to be getting colder and is freezing more ice: "Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica." (per This article and This Report)Moderator Response: Anyone who replies to this, please, please do so by pointing to the appropriate thread. -
rustygecko at 12:04 PM on 10 February 2011Abraham reply to Monckton
There is a certain irony in Mr Monckton attacking anyone's academic or scientific credentials concerning climate science as this is a man whose only academic qualification is in "Classics" and he received a bachelors degree, which he insists on calling a masters. Mr Monkton has no scientific qualifications at all. He does however claim to have the cure for HIV. Watch this space. I see a Nobel Prize coming... Do they award Nobel Prizes for BS? -
robert way at 11:57 AM on 10 February 2011Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
Great resource, I highly recommend Kelly's site. -
adelady at 11:52 AM on 10 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
If you look at these three covering the months in question, it doesn't look much as though there's anything in these 3 months to affect the record for 120 months. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/hprcc/1mt/200910.png http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/hprcc/1mt/200911.png http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/national/hprcc/1mt/200912.png This is the best I could get from NOAA. The other series I wanted are currently unavailable for these individual months. -
Marcus at 11:15 AM on 10 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
You know, I do grow tired of this ongoing furphy that the modest warming of the 17th through 19th centuries *caused* the growth in human population. If that were true, then we should have seen similar population booms during the Medieval Warm Period. What we *actually* see, though, is several major famines, the Bubonic Plague & the collapse of several large civilizations (the Anasazi, the Mayans & the Khmer). The real cause of the population growth from the 17th century on can be summed up in one phrase-The Enlightenment. The unchaining of Science from the shackles of religion allowed for massive leaps forward in medicine, agriculture & manufacturing. This, in turn, allowed for better nutrition, better living standards, & improvements in infant mortality & life expectancy. We are now, however, starting to reap a bitter harvest from these past benefits-with overpopulation, pollution & climate change being a major threat to our continued success. It doesn't help when people like Pirate adopt the typical "head-in-the-sand" approach to these problems-esp. as he's supposedly a *teacher*! -
Tor B at 10:57 AM on 10 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
Michael Sweet (8): “Wild, unsupported claims” in my (4) post? I’m not sure what claims I’ve made, unsupported or otherwise! And aren’t we supposed to avoid unfounded attacks? You appear to be claiming that monthly global temperature averages which are warm to extremely warm (note: global) cannot include American weather station temperature records which might include more record lows than record highs. If you look at Figure 1 near the top of the blog, you will discover it reports on 59 years and 9 months of record high temperatures and record low temperatures in the contiguous USA, so for the rest of this post please ignore what’s happening in the rest of the world. (If you don’t like it, then complain that Figure 1 was included in the blog post in the first place.) The graph was first published in November 2009, so data for the end of 2009 was not available. I’m guessing the data to complete the last decade represented on the graph became available about a year ago, but it seems nobody has put the last three months’ data into the graph. Curious as to what that data might indicate, I did a Google search for 2009 USA temperature records and came up with two short statements about two of the three missing months. I treated that information as being anecdotal, but it was better data than no data. It was also accurate information, as far as it went. Thank you, Michael Sweet, for directing me to the NCDC Climate Monitoring reports (although your link doesn’t seem to work). The Global Mean Temp Anomaly Maps for the three months I consider to be missing from the Figure 1 graph generally confirm the statements I obtained from the Google search, specifically, Oct 2009 - most of contiguous USA, especially the upper midwest, up to 5C below the 1961-1990 base period. Nov 2009 - contiguous USA mostly above the base period (up to 5C) Dec 2009 - contiguous USA mostly below the base period (up to 4C). We do not know from this added information whether there were *any* record high or record low temperatures at individual weather stations in the USA during those three months. However, this added information suggests to me that the 2000’s record high temperature bar might grow some, and the 2000’s record low temperature bar might grow some too, and probably a little more. I do not believe the three months missing data is likely to significantly alter the 2.04:1 ratio derived from 117 months, but I don’t know. I do believe it would be appropriate for each decade represented on the graph to have the same number of months. The graph is apparantly part of a study by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel and NOAA published in Geophysical Research Letters. I don’t have any leverage with those good folks (nor anybody else) to make the graph cover the entire 60 year period. I figured, however, someone reading this blog might. I’m really just asking for a nifty graph that currently covers 59 years and 9 months to be revised so that it covers an even 60 years. -
michael sweet at 10:47 AM on 10 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
Baerbelw: I think the main issue with the sea level problem is that the problem is so huge it is difficult to summarize. I cannot think of anything that really describes the problem well. Your choice is good. Millions, billions, trillions eventually it adds up to real money. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:32 AM on 10 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Johnd if it is so obvious but ignored, why is Spencer not putting it in a paper? Spencer throws all sorts of wild stuff on his blog to get the denialosphere excited but what has he published lately (or ever) that is fundamentally running counter to the consensus model of Earth Climate? I'm as unimpressed with Spencer as when the errors in his work were uncovered by others. -
Phil263 at 10:25 AM on 10 February 2011Voicing values and climate change
@ sphaerica Totally in agreement with your analysis. BTW the message that you are suggesting is broadly the message that came out of the Garnaut Review. May be a shorter version of the Review should be made available to the public. -
Marcus at 10:01 AM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP, do you actually bother to properly *read* other people's comments? Consensus has been frequently overturned in the past-in a number of scientific fields-but only when sufficient evidence was provided to do so. As I showed in my previous post, the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology has been overturned *three times* in the space of only 30-40 years, because evidence was supplied to show where it was in error. By contrast, the members of the Cult of Denial would much rather waste our time whinging about fake conspiracies than in finding the evidence needed to overturn the consensus view on Climate Change. You go further still by wasting our time with claims that burning fossil fuels will deplete our Oxygen, when clearly even if *all* the fossil carbon ever produced in this planet's history were burned up, we'd get less than 10,000ppm of CO2 (or about 1% of the atmosphere), which in turn would reduce the concentration of Oxygen from 22% to 21%. If we were ever able to burn that much fossil carbon, btw, I'd be more concerned about having lethal amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere-assuming that we were still alive, due to planetary temperatures being about 5 degrees warmer than today. -
muoncounter at 08:23 AM on 10 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#164: "yet another Hockey Stick!" What can I say? I'm an old Rangers fan; I guess you're a Red Wings man? Seen any octopus lately? But it's amazing how these things are so consistent. Almost like there's something to this AGW thing, despite what those nitwits in Congress think. I would rag on you for giving us Fred Upton (for those who don't recognize the name, he's a Congressman from Michigan, Yooper's home state), but he's nothing compared to the knuckleheads who come from where I live. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:06 AM on 10 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
@ muoncounter (163) Sounds like you've found (mock gasp!) yet another Hockey Stick! (cue Rimshot) Horrors... The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 07:56 AM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
Re: RSVP (22) I have to ask, for clarity, if English is not your native language? For your statement:"For instance, even if the petrolium should never run out, the oxygen will."
Certainly leaves no doubt to the reader that you mean that the oxygen will definitely run out (emphasis added). Your amplifying comment at 13 above:"Combustion depends on oxygen. For all practical purposes oxygen is free "fuel" that is slowly getting consumed, and without oxygen, petrolium becomes quite useless. (I suppose the airlines will be the first to notice this problem.)"
Further confirms that intent. So then we are left with yet another RSVP nonsciencical circus on yet another SkS thread. How nice. The Yooper -
johnd at 07:46 AM on 10 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
XPLAlN at 03:14 AM on 10 February, 2011, I totally agree with you regarding "But is he really asking for that?" though I think he is asking tongue in cheek rather than playing sleight of hand. I am left wondering whether Spencer is quietly chuckling to himself or pulling his hair in frustration out as he watches those who tie themselves in knots having overlooked what is most obvious to others. -
RSVP at 07:18 AM on 10 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
#16-21 Save your breath (and oxygen) on this one folks. I could accuse all of creating straw men as well, since my original comment, #9, was a conditional statement that said IF the petroleum should never run out, the oxygen will. It would just be a matter of time. -
BaerbelW at 07:12 AM on 10 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
Thanks for the feedback! @Sphaerica "save side" on slide 11 was just me not finding another typo (thanks for spotting it) Slide 13 - I'm going to reword the explanation for an updated version of the quiz to make this clearer Slide 24 - I changed the question to Michael Sweet's suggestion (this was somewhat "lost in translation" as I had first created the quiz in German) @Michael Sweet Sea level rise question: I used the numbers as they were shown in the WWF/Allianz-report (I didn't want to get caught in the differences between German and British/US billions) @Phil Sorry about the double-sided printing issue - I can add one more slide as page #2 so that this works better. Thanks for your suggestion to add a link to SkepticalScience - I changed the last slide to do just that. @SME and Peter Offenhartz I see your points about using percentages. On the other hand, they aren't quite as visually intruiging as the graphics of the icecubes currently included. Also, as 0.01% is a very small number it would most likely just cause a reaction of "so what?" which in the case of the Greenland icesheet isn't really warranted. I'll wait until tomorrow in case more suggestions show up in the comments and will then upload modified versions of the PDF- and PPT-files. -
Peter Offenhartz at 06:37 AM on 10 February 2011So, you think that learning about climate change needs to be tedious?
I agree with SME (#6) in re using percentages. The absolute numbers are meaningful only in the context of the total ice volume. If you are going to use absolute numbers you should also indicate the total world volume of ice (both poles), which is about 33 x 10^6 cubic kilometers. An even more interesting question is how much heat it would take to melt a proportion of the ice (say 0.01%) compared to the world-wide solar radiation over the course of a year... -
muoncounter at 06:25 AM on 10 February 2011Global Warming and Cold Winters
#159: "Chicago has warmed at 0.22C for the past 4 decades." Same procedure I used here. The link to the data viewer (a website from the 'other side') is there; select the map, choose either specific GHCN stations or take the 5x5 grid. Then take the trend line on the resulting graph and select a time window. What struck me as important enough to put together the Europe post was that the recent (50 year) trends are 2-3x the 100 year trends. -
Phila at 06:20 AM on 10 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
Pirate: the existence of natural thermostatic mechanisms. For (hopefully) the last time, this question has been raised many times over the decades, and investigated in painstaking detail, and the evidence really does not support the existence of a natural mechanism that can account for the current amount and rate of warming. That's largely why AGW is so widely accepted. In other words, that horse bolted from the stable some time ago, and will probably not be coming back no matter how earnestly you peer at the horizon. Saying "But there could be a natural thermostatic mechanism, so let's act as though there is!" is not rational, not scientific...it's not anything but an avoidance maneuver. You're coming perilously close to creating a mechanistic version of the "God of the Gaps": In the absence of definitive proof — which any good Popperian knows is not forthcoming — every uncertainty becomes "evidence" for the only ideologically acceptable explanation for warming. However, the really interesting question here is not the degree of scientific support for AGW, but why a relatively small group of people who would ordinarily respect that degree of support reflexively dismiss it in this instance. (It's also interesting that so many people who claim to believe in "personal responsibility" and "market forces" would go so far out of their way to dismiss human agency, and to misrepresent the scientific information on which we must base our "rational" choices. But that's a rant for another day and another site.) That statement was made to set the ground rules for those who are under the false assumptions that models are fact. You and I may not do that, but others do. Can you give us a specific example of a climate scientist who assumes that "models are fact"? Because if you can't, this is simply another strawman. Which brings up a question that often comes to mind when I'm reading "skeptical" arguments: Why would I trust amateurs who can't form logically coherent arguments, or get basic facts straight, to have a better grasp of climatology than professional climatologists? This may sound insulting, but the intent is constructive: We'd all benefit from logical, coherent, well-informed criticisms of the AGW consensus, instead of the same old handwaving and misconceptions. -
Dikran Marsupial at 06:16 AM on 10 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
apiratelooksat50@85 I get my understanding of hypothesis tests from statistics textbooks and discussions with experienced statisticians (my research is in a branch of statistics). Frequentist hypothesis tests are widely misunderstood in the sciences, psychology is no different. Not being able to reject the null hypothesis does not mean the alternative hypothesis is false. It is easy to demonstrate that this is true. Say I have a double headed coin and you want to test whether the coin is biased or not. In that case, the null hypothesis is that the coin is fair and so p(head)=p(tail)=0.5. If I flip the coin 4 times and get a head each time, then the p-value = 0.5^4 = 0.0625. That is greater than 0.05, so we are unable to reject the null hypothesis, does that mean the alternative hypothesis is false? No, it just means we haven't seen enough data to establish that the coin is not fair. Re your comment on models. The way models were used to establish that the observed warming is inconsistent with our best understanding of natural variability was not to provide explanations or facts, but to generate testable predictions. Do you agree then that the material in FAQ 9.2 in the IPCC report answers Dr Spencers challenge? I see you have repeated your comment in 88, after it had already been pointed out that the output of models is not treated as such.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Modeling-specific discussion should go to Models are unreliable. [Dikran Marsupial] my comment was on how the models are used rather than whether they are reliable, any discussion of the latter topic definitely belongs on the thread muoncounter mentions, I'll happily discuss that topic there. -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:58 AM on 10 February 2011How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
KR I agree that the way Spencer's challenge is worded makes it difficult to make a null hypothesis. We established that earlier. Also, the models (predictions) cannot be used as factual unless determined to be true by observations.
Prev 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 Next
