Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 Next
Comments 109701 to 109750:
-
muoncounter at 21:43 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
#29 & #40: Why not go right to the source?
click for full scale at source page Change to 'global' 12-31-08
At the time of that image the N/S total variation was indeed about 15 ppm. In the first image in the global data set, 1/1/01, it was only 8 ppm. So the discrepancy between hemispheres has doubled in 9 years? That's no natural cycle.
And 15ppm? At 395ppm, the delta F is 1.84; at 380ppm, delta F is 1.63, a difference of 11%. Seems like a lot.
-
beam me up scotty at 21:41 PM on 19 September 2010Should The Earth Be Cooling?
The arctic is screaming global warming. Skepticism is looking more and more like proselytization. How about this site expanding its scope to include the debate about what we should do about it? Pros and cons of geoengineering Carbon capture State of the art modeling Regional forecasting etc. -
mspelto at 21:38 PM on 19 September 2010What's happening to glaciers globally?
Riccardo you are correct that just substantial accumulation zone thinning is enough to forecast glacier survival. You want a more sophisticated measure. However, the goal is a simple measure that can be easily applied to all glaciers simply with decent repeat satellite images, or a map and a satellite image. If we make it to sophisticated such as a ratio of thinning to changes in velocity in the accumulation zone we make it difficult to apply. HR good question about the UNEP graph. The WGMS 30 reference glaciers goes back to 1980. Reference network. If they move the start date to 1985 they will be able to expand to up to 45. If they move the start date for the group back to 1946 they will only have 2 to choose from. Only one Storglaciaren in Sweden is in the reference group. In 1949 Sarennes Glacier, France and Storbreen, Norway are added. Thus, the WGMS record for the 1945-1955 period relies on only a couple of glacier and is not useful for a global summary. The graph UNEP has reports only the Storglaciaren data at first, look at Mass Balance Bulletin 10 page 13 for that glaciers graph and compare. Look at page 1-4 for the list of glaciers and years examined, some of the records are not complete from the first to the last year. This is our best mass balance data. There are other glaciers like the Taku Glacier in Alaska where mass balance work began in 1946 that is not part of the WGMS reference glacier system. This is because before this record publishing this record in 1990 I waited for satellite verification of its accuracy. In the section of BAMS state of the Climate 2009-for glacier mass balance-which I authored-we were asked to provide the mass balance data records for previous data periods. Note the WGMS actual reported record, which is absolutely the best, but it only goes back to 1980. WGMS. Before that Cogley who first contacted me about the global glacier mass balance record more than a decade ago, has the best. He has used Geodetic data not just directly measured data. This is data based on volume change determined from repeat mapping, usually via photographs. This work typically does not provide an annual measurement, as annual photographs tend to be rare. It does provide an accurate record for longer time intervals. If you look at Cogley's 2009 Figure 2 you will note that until 1930 and the advent of aerial photography the record is scant. The mass balance record from 1850-1950 will be improved, but Cogley for now has provided the best analysis. There are many more glaciers that we can and will add to a longer term glacier mass balance record since 1950 using geodetic assessment. Think of comparing a glacier today in a satellite image with excellent mapping details to its original mapped state such as for Bear Glacier or Grasshopper Glacier. Is does match the results of Oerlemans (1999) also. That record based on terminus changes is also useful. -
Erl Happ at 21:36 PM on 19 September 2010It's El Niño
Please read:http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/is-enso-rather-than-a-%E2%80%98greenhouse-effect%E2%80%99-the-origin-of-%E2%80%98climate-change%E2%80%99-by-erl-happ/ Tell me this: What is responsible for the long term change in the differential pressure that drives the trade winds and tropical temperature? -
Daved Green at 21:33 PM on 19 September 2010Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
I guess this is the problem with some basics versions , its to easy to pick apart becuase it is not detailed enough . Basic versions are just trying to outline an Idea and I think its hard not to generalise otherwise it would become longwinded and hard to give a quick rebuttal while standing on the train . -
beam me up scotty at 21:23 PM on 19 September 2010Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
"Skeptics" use bits of science like flack to deflect focus from their core arguments. In Thingadonta's case the core argument appears to be absent altogether. The core motive seems clear: impugn the credibility of the author. -
CBDunkerson at 21:23 PM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz #287 wrote: "However, as I'm sceptical (because I've witnessed 10 years of flat HadCRUt data)" So you are 'skeptical' based on a false claim. Go figure. What's fascinating is that when you cite the numbers you start from 2001, which was less than ten years ago, round the anomaly values down, and wildly underestimate the 2010 value. The actual numbers are; 2000: 0.271 2001: 0.408 2002: 0.465 2003: 0.475 2004: 0.447 2005: 0.482 2006: 0.425 2007: 0.402 2008: 0.325 2009: 0.441 2010: 0.531 (so far) Drawing a trend line from the start and end points yields; 2000-2009: +0.17 C/decade 2001-2010: +0.123 C/decade Neither seems particularly "flat". -
tobyjoyce at 21:06 PM on 19 September 2010Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
Thingadonta #1, Methinks you protest too much. Firstly, it is essential to group contrarians argument in bite-sized chunks so that they can be classified, even if that is not exact. Global warming is a single "inference to the best explanation" for a variety of phenomena. Contrarians try to refute some of the arguments while ignoring others, so that the collectivity of their efforts at refutation tend to be chaotic and contradictory. Contrarian Contradictions Secondly, the post does not say that most contrarians reject the greenhouse effect. Is said that SOME MUST DO SO in order to affirm a 1500 year climate cycle. Funny, your argument is actually what you are decrying - a strawman. About your third point, I will leave that for John. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Daniel, my opinions are worthless to you. I have a view on climate change which I have expressed here many times. However, as I'm sceptical (because I've witnessed 10 years of flat HadCRUt data) then this is worthless to you too. You may well point to other metrics as evidence, and that may be valid, but after all is said and done, I am sceptical that the future will be warm - based on those 10 years and the fact that we know so little about climate science. Now that may well be illogical to you, even irrational. That's fine, I can live with that, but you have to understand that people like me, who hover on the fence, and who will be swayed by a few year's worth of data, are the norm, the mainstream. We've both seen that very many people are swayed by one hot summer or cold winter! You're not going to change our view by pointing us to climate metrics that are still disputed by very eminent people. Let's be honest with each other, if ALL the scientists were on one side then to believe the opposite would be pretty obtuse. Take OHC as a classic example - with Pielke. So Daniel, the only 'evidence' I can offer you is the evident opposition to your beliefs by people like Pielke, Spencer et al. You may well rule these out of hand (although I wouldn't do that if I were you). The 'evidence' for my beliefs is that some very clever people say that we cannot be sure about future feedbacks. I have pointed this out many times Daniel, and I am a little weary that you say you're "still waiting". So I'll say it yet again. The evidence for my scepticism is that we don't know enough about the climate system. We must approach this with open minds - as I indicated before. We MUST be sceptical. That's not just good science, that IS science! We all show confirmation bias. It's quite evident on here. To contribute on a Creationist website (as I have many times) you go armed with your confirmation bias - it's impossible not to. But with Creationism we have a mass of reliable evidence against total faith and belief. Man-made climate change is NOT the same debate in different clothes; for here we have uncertainty and opposite opinion from very knowledgable people. I will respond to the other posters, but I will also say that I WILL continue to visit WUWT as well as realclimate. I have posted at WUWT and argued there - even pulling Anthony up once on the subject of CO2 emissions, to which he replied. If nothing else, then I urge you to use it as a reference source (like the link I gave for Arctic ice graphs), but also use it to read other's opinions (as I do with realclimate - though I've stopped posting there). Reply later when more time allows. All the best. -
CBDunkerson at 19:58 PM on 19 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
johnd, are you arguing that small variations in CO2 level within a few centimeters of the surface play a significant part in global temperatures? That SEEMS to be what you are getting at... it just doesn't make sense. The whole reason CO2 is such a significant greenhouse gas (aside from its longevity) is that it spreads high up through the atmosphere. A thin layer has very little impact on temperatures... it is the huge altitude range that CO2 occupies which allows it to produce significant additional warming. Your 'few centimeters' of CO2 at the surface would produce an insignificant amount of greenhouse warming... almost all of which would also be produced by water vapor even if the CO2 weren't there. It's like arguing about the impact of a falling pebble while ignoring the rockslide behind it. That said, it should be understood that when readings show 390 ppm at various surface stations around the world and in satellite measurements at higher altitudes that is effectively the baseline CO2... the amount after it has been well mixed through the atmosphere. Regions downwind of major emissions areas will have that baseline PLUS some additional amount of CO2 which hasn't dispersed yet. So yes, there are localized variations in CO2, but only in that in some regions it is higher than the commonly cited values because it hasn't had time to mix through the atmosphere yet. -
thingadonta at 19:40 PM on 19 September 2010Global warming and the unstoppable 1500 year cycle
Your discussion above is wrong on several points. Firstly and generally, you are grouping together and over-simplifying skeptical arguments in order to more easily label and discredit them. This is a common straw man technique. But to your first point, most skeptics don't deny that global warming is happening. They disagree about the causes, rate and relative degree. Instead of positing it as (almost) exclusively a human-caused effect, they tend to think that natural effects in the last several decades, as well as in the broader term going back centuries, have been understated. Secondly, (nearly all) skeptics do not reject the greenhouse effect. Once again, they disagree about the relative degree and rate. They do not generally disagree about the cause of the greenhouse effect either, ie gases produced by human activities cause a trapping of heat; once again they disagree about the relative degree this effect has as a causative factor to observed climate changes, and how much these climate changes are natural (or in some cases just weather). You are also wrong about the 1500 cycle being limited to the Northern Hemisphere. Voelker, Antje H.L. (2002). "Global distribution of centennial-scale records for Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3: a database". Quaternary Science Reviews 21: 1185–1212 "The pattern in the Southern Hemisphere is different, with slow warming and much smaller temperature fluctuations" I suspect you are only referring to the cycle within integlacial periods, where the effect is weaker. During ice age cycles, the cycle has been found in both hemispheres, although with less T variation in the Southern Hemisphere. The reason for apparent effects being limited during interglacials to the Northern Hemisphere is probably due to lack of data in the Southern Hemisphere, much the same as arguments once put forward for the Medieval Warm Period, which is more and more being conclusively shown to show up in the Southern Hemisphere, as more data is gathered. Your are also wrong in stating "And unlike natural heat variations the current temperature increase caused by CO2 is being recorded occurring all around the globe – on the ground, in the air and in the oceans. Natural T variations like ice ages occur all around the globe, so I don't know how you can state the above. This must be some kind of record for this site, at least 3 major mistakes in one discussion. -
Paul D at 18:14 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
Daniel Bailey@29: Probably a better animated visualisation? http://youtu.be/l8tPKj20GFo -
Paul D at 18:08 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
Philippe@30: "Ok, but these variations span about 15-20 ppm. I don't know what kind of a difference in radiative forcing that makes but I'm guessing not that much." True! I suspect the differences between the hemispheres are a mixture of things, with some more dominant than others. -
HumanityRules at 18:03 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
33.Daniel Bailey 34.archiesteel I thought RSVP put forward a good discussion point. VTG wanted to ignore that discussion and instead wanted a definitive answer, I think that's were the silliness started. It's worth discussing natural variability in light of paleo-reconstructions. The discussion around these reconstructions tend to focus narrowly on the rather trivial point of whether todays temp is higher than 800 years ago. My understanding is there is more to be gained than that. I was being slightly flippant with my answer but that doesn't mean I think the numbers would be unrealistic. Jasper Kirkby @ CERN seems to think there is more to this question. Sorry to all concerned ;) -
RSVP at 17:51 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
"archiesteel at 12:37 PM on 19 September, 2010 @HumanityRules: why are you responding for RSVP? He's a grown man, he can provide his own answers (hopefully, it'll be better than yours)." To HumanityRules: Thanks for pointing out what the graphs clearly indicate. archiesteel I went to the link and could only read the abstract without paying for the actual article. The last sentence in the abstract refers to the detection of "unprecedented" warming in recent times. Imagine if you were in a hotel and expected to pay to hear a fire alarm. -
johnd at 14:03 PM on 19 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Daniel Bailey at 13:16 PM, that map is CO2 8km up. The reference earlier was to CO2 levels as measured at surface stations, and how it is transported by the weather systems. The mention in my post above of the micro-climate is also relevant to CO2 , given CO2 sources and sinks are generally at the immediate surface, so CO2 levels in the first couple of centimetres are likely to differ from those at higher elevations and be subject transportation by conditions in effect at those lower levels. -
barry1487 at 13:58 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
@LazarusDoesn't this research indicate that the MWP was global, or at least not restricted to the northern hemisphere?
There's still a lot of spatial and temporal inhomogeneity, but it does seem by now that 950 - 1250 AD was particularly warm for most of the globe. This old skeptic map is worthwhile pouring over to see that inhomogeneity. Most proxy data indicate an MWP during the classic period, but others show cool temps for that time and warm peaks beyond the MWP. http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html (You can hover over or the graphs to expand them, and click on them to get more details) -
johnd at 13:54 PM on 19 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
scaddenp at 14:54 PM, I think it is quite clear that the various processes that occur at the very surface and the few centimetres immediately above are not only very complex, but as yet not adequately understood or quantified. I would rate the status of such processes somewhat similar to those driving clouds, both in terms of complexity, and of current understanding, both of which are probably the most important processes of all when it comes to understanding climate change. As we have seen, what happens at the surface and immediately adjacent to it, is somewhat different to what happens just above it in the zone occupied by weather stations which have, and still do provide the basic data that allows both weather and climate to be quantified and analysed. The significance of this difference has not been lost on those who research agriculture, or indeed those who practice it. For them, it is the micro-climate, right at the earths surface that is important, that zone where solar radiation transfers it's energy to the soil and water, where evaporation takes place, NOT so much what happens 1.2m above where the weather stations are located which is above the zone in which most crops grow. If there is any nett transfer of knowledge between those involved in agricultural research, and those in climate research, I would not be surprised if it was from the agricultural scientists who research this micro-climate, to the climate scientists. The bare foot boy I mentioned earlier, was a proxy for the knowledge that those who are physically involved in the environment accumulate both by casual observation, and from a vested interest in what is really happening within that micro-climate, knowledge that many whose understanding of the climate comes from theories and formulas, and have not had the opportunity to relate what has been learned, to what is perhaps not so readily apparent without such a vested interest. With regards to the lack of freezing to death in ones backyard at night, that I imagine would be conditional on firstly the location of the backyard, and secondly that of the nights being shorter than 24 hours. -
barry1487 at 13:46 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
Mann had near perfectly straight down trending shafts with a very obvious blade.
I see less variability, but definitely not a straight line. It's also useful to read Mann 99 conclusions."Although NH reconstructions prior to about AD 1400 exhibit expanded uncertainties, several important conclusions are possible, notwithstanding certain caveats. While warmth early in the millennium approaches mean 20th century levels, the late 20th century still appears anomalous: the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium. More widespread high-resolution data which can resolve millennial-scale variability are needed before more con dent conclusions can be reached with regard to the spatial and temporal details of climate change in the past millennium and beyond."
Both the figures you show allow for far more natural variability than the contentious Mann hockey stick.
Variability is... variable from study to study. You'd expect more variability at smaller scales - ie, globe v region, region v city etc. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:16 PM on 19 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
Re: johnd (126) Then try this one:
The Yooper
-
johnd at 13:08 PM on 19 September 2010Climate change: Water vapor makes for a wet argument
KR at 02:53 AM, I can't let you go without asking what is the relevance of the CO2 map. It does not represent measured CO2 distribution, but rather CO2 emissions attributed to human activity, so instead is basically a population density map. -
archiesteel at 12:37 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
@HumanityRules: why are you responding for RSVP? He's a grown man, he can provide his own answers (hopefully, it'll be better than yours). -
Daniel Bailey at 12:15 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
Re: HumanityRules (31, 32) You waste everyone's time here by voicing opinions contrary to the consensus of knowledge and then fail to provide any source for those opinion. Baseless assertions. Hot air. Wasting time. I thought you were better than that. Disappointing. The Yooper -
HumanityRules at 12:05 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
...... with nothing "in the pipeline". -
HumanityRules at 12:03 PM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
25.VeryTallGuy Please, quantify rather than assert ? About 1/3-1/2 of 20th Century warming is anthropogenic. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:46 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Re: Baz (277)"However, refusing to listen to an opinion opposite to yours is also natural, but dangerous."
On the contrary, I listen to far more differing opinions than you realize. If it is supported by reason and citations that make sense, I am more than amenable to change my position. My position, based on a preponderance of evidence and facts, is that the globe (land, water, ice) is warming and we humans are causing it. I have spoken with many skeptical of this over the years. None have presented a coherent argument, let alone one supported by science. Personally, it was with great reluctance that, after weighing the evidence and the implications of the evidence, that I accepted AGW as an ongoing reality. I daily eagerly listen to alternatives, for the future that comes near now, is not one I would wish for anyone. And daily I am disappointed. I have listened to you, Baz. Weighed what you have had to say. Waited for the evidence to be provided to back up your opinions. And I'm still waiting. So unless you can provide some citations for me to weigh, all we have now is debate. And we both agree that is pointless. The Yooper -
jyyh at 11:15 AM on 19 September 2010Himalayan Glaciers: Wrong Date, Right Message
SoundOff, if I recall correctly, there were some demands to include an estimate of this w/o the science being ready to answer as there was only one (Kotlyakov) paper present at the time that made this bold an extrapolation... -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:35 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
@ The Ville. Ok, but these variations span about 15-20 ppm. I don't know what kind of a difference in radiative forcing that makes but I'm guessing not that much. -
Phila at 09:56 AM on 19 September 2010Himalayan Glaciers: Wrong Date, Right Message
#12 archiesteel Isn't this ground enough for bannination? Most other "skeptics" who post here have their blind spots, like all of us, but they do seem to make an effort to stay on the right side of the signal/noise ratio. Thingadonta, not so much. To put it very politely indeed. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:32 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
Re: The Ville (28) To amplify on your NASA map, here's (because you reminded me of it) an animation showing the hemispherical contributions over time, in motion. Kinda cool to watch. The Yooper -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:54 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz... I would suggest to anyone that it's bad to spend time over at WUWT. I go there and sometimes even post. A few times I've been jumped by the hoards and called a liar and incredible other epithets that I won't bother repeating just for saying very very simple stuff, like "CO2 absorbs long wave radiation." Other times Anthony seems to have his moderators on a shorter leash and I've been able to make a few comments. I have a strong sense that there is actually common ground between the two side and I want to figure out how to help resolve it. My objections - I think most objections here on SkS - come from very anti-science attacks on GW. Like the aforementioned CO2 comment. Or even when you look at a paper discussing GRACE ice mass losses in Antarctica and come away with the conclusion that the ice is stable. That's like your oncologist telling you the cancer is malignant and you saying, "Nah, looks stable to me." There is plenty that is unknown and uncertain about climate change. There is plenty to discuss about whether sensitivity is high or low. This is where the science is actually operating now. There is a TON to discuss about how society should respond to climate change. But to totally reject fundamental physical aspects of climate change is just beyond the pale. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:09 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Re: pbjamm (283) Thank you for the kind words. We are all walkers on the path of learning (for there are many side paths, some that rejoin, others to lead one astray). Some are ahead of us on this path we walk, others just beginning. When we work together, all benefit from the learning. The Yooper -
pbjamm at 07:46 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Daniel Baily :221,282, and just about everything else. archiesteel : 281 Thank you both for being both more eloquent and more knowledgeable than I. It is the well thought out and well sourced commentary that keeps the site so interesting. The primary posts are great beginnings to the discussion but only a beginning. @BAZ I too am a born doubter, but doubt is not the same thing as evidence. Evidence is on the side of AGW. WUWT and the other contrarians (with whom i spend much too much time arguing) seem to mistake imperfect/incomplete evidence as as a lack of evidence. SkSc is the best resource I have found for a layman like myself to learn what the science actually says. -
Paul D at 07:31 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
Philippe Chantrea@20 "Muoncounter, CO2 is well mixed, I don't think that where the sources are located is what makes the difference. The much larger proportion of ocean on the Southern hemisphere is more likely to contribute." Despite the mixing, here's a NASA global map showing that there are concentrations at certain latitudes: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_833.html Interesting map! You have higher concentrations in the Northern hemisphere where there is more land mass, basically a double whammy. -
michael sweet at 06:24 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
caerbannog: good summary -
caerbannog at 06:19 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
Not going to mention any names here, but folks who still obsess over Mann's work of a dozen years ago (an eternity in terms of the rapid progress of climate-science) have absolutely no clue about how science really works. Mann was the *first* person to attempt a global temperature reconstruction based on proxy data. As with virtually any scientific *first attempt*, there was plenty of room for improvement. And the improvements did come, it terms of additional reconstructions that built on and refined the techniques pioneered by Mann a climate-science eternity ago. Contrast the situation with Mann vs. McIntyre/McKitrick. Mann's work spawned a bunch of additional research that largely confirmed (and improved on) his original work. Mann's original hockey-stick did not capture low-freq temperature variations adequately, but as a pioneering "first try", it wasn't bad at all. None of the follow-on studies repudiated his work; they improved upon it. This latest paper is just one more example. Now look at the McIntyre/McKitrick paper that was published back in 2005. In the 5+ years since that paper was published, how many follow-up scientific papers did it spawn? How much new scientific investigative work did it inspire? Were followup papers published that improved on M&M's work? Promising new avenues of research always result in new papers being published. How many new papers did M&M's work generate? Mann himself has published a "new and improved" hockey-stick reconstruction, and has been a very productive scientist the past few years. How much new research have M&M published in that past 5 years? To sum up: Mann's original paper inspired a whole new avenue of (ongoing) scientific resarch. M&M's paper, in contrast, just molders away in the "not even wrong" circular file of failed journal papers. -
VeryTallGuy at 05:52 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
RSVP #15 "While man's activities are surely contributing to recent warming, the perturbance doesnt appear to be that significant given the total amount of fossil fuel that has been consumed in this period" Please, quantify rather than assert ? How much would you expect recent warming to be given anthropogenic changes ? How much has it been ? (clue: according to climate scientists the two line up rather well...) -
Daniel Bailey at 05:08 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Re: Rob Honeycutt (273; Anthony, Steve, WUWT Arctic Ice) You're asking me to go to a very dark, irrational place where illogic and emotions rule. Well, I'm married, so I have some experience in that regard, so here goes. ;) Anthony (because WUWT IS Anthony; it's a reflection of who he is and what he's all about) gives his audience what they came for: to see the Jerry Springer of "Science Blogs" and the circus that it is. Whatever mainstream consensus shows, he's against. Hence the "recovery" meme. As for Steve...I will be charitable and say that understanding of systemic behaviors, dynamical responses and even statistics are not his forte. Anthony is the Dark Lord, Steve is Saruman. Anthony has set up Steve to take the fall on this one (note the recent censoring Anthony imposed on Steve; a prelude to the coming finale). Anthony is far from clueless; everything is by design. Credibility isn't to be worried about because pertinent criticism get either ignored or deleted. A behavior all too common in denizens of lairs like that. In closing, all symptomatic of a thought process: " Draw your curves, then plot the data that agrees with it." The Yooper -
Albatross at 04:58 AM on 19 September 2010Should The Earth Be Cooling?
kdkd @50, "I must prepare a post on linear trends and statistical power in order to deal with this oft-repeated rubbish of yours and others' once and for all. Please do kdkd. -
mdenison at 04:14 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
RSVP 15. The reconstructed temperature shown at the time of the MWP is about -0.2C falling by 1500 to about -0.6 C. This is a change of 0.4C This fall is reversed by 1900. The change shown for the last 100 years is then a further more rapid rise of 0.3C. At present GISS indicates the anomaly for South America is between 0.5 and 1.0C. So this proxy with the temperature record indicates that in the last 100 years temperature has risen 0.7 to 1.2 C. This is a larger and faster change than any other indicated by the proxy in the last 1600 years. -
Albatross at 03:59 AM on 19 September 2010Should The Earth Be Cooling?
Indeed, if the "skeptics" are to be believed the planet should be undergoing marked and prolonged cooling. Yet, we have this happening:
And the above graphic (courtesy RC) does not include data for most of 2010.
Now applying certain people's misguided logic here, the theory of AGW would have been erroneously "falsified" many, many times over the duration of the instrumented SAT record. Yet, despite all those dips and bumps, the long-term warming trend is clear. Drawing attention to every "dip" by skeptics is quite simply unscientific and misleading.
I really do not understand what 'skeptics' here are trying to argue. To my knowledge, no (reputable) climate scientist has said that we should expect a monotonic increase in global surface temperatures with increased GHG forcing.
-
archiesteel at 03:51 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
@Baz: "Perhaps I should clarify something, it's unfortunate that some here think that, as believers in a certain theory, you are somehow self-consored in visiting a website which is the opposite to what you believe." First, science is not about beliefs, it's about rational thinking. I don't "believe" in AGW, I believe the scientific method can be used to correctly interpret the facts. So far, the evidence supporting AGW theory is nothing short of overwhelming, so it is my opinion that the theory is very likely true. As someone else said here the other day: I don't believe in AGW, I accept the theory is true. Second, there's nothing wrong with visiting WUWT or other denialist/contrarian sites. What we're objecting to here is you using them as a source. "This type of thinking pervades society, not just beliefs on the internet. If you are right wing in politics, then it's actually beneficial to understand what the left is saying." I think that's the crux of your misunderstanding, if I may be so bold as to suggest you are mistaken: the left/right debate is mostly about opinion, which is why it's a political debate. Scientific debate is not the same, for it is not about opinions, but about scientific evidence, theories, and the like. You can't just say "I believe X" without expecting to be ask to support X with some peer-reviewed evidence. "If you strangely believe that the 'other side' should not be even visited then, believe me, you REALLY need to take a look at yourselves. You're not just closing your mind, your building a big wall where you cannot see anything but your own opinion, and the opinions of people who think just like you. It's actually dangerous." You're being overdramatic, here. Actually, you're being a little ill-mannered, suggesting we have closed minds because we don't regard WUWT as a scientifically valid web site. The truth is that we *are* open-minded, and most of us have probably spent some time visiting WUWT and similar sites. The very fact that Skeptical Science lists a compendium of contrarian arugments is proof we are aware of the arguments presented (time and time again) on such sites. So, you see, it's not that we don't want to hear what the other side is saying - it's just that the other side is always saying the same thing, even though what they're saying has been debunked ad nauseam. It's useful to bring these anti-AGW arguments *once*, so that the scientific community can address them, but once they've been shown wrong, repeating them is nothing more than engaging in anti-scientific propaganda. -
CBDunkerson at 03:42 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Baz writes: "BTW, I've "ignored" no other's comments other than yours" Far from true. There have been several comments you did not respond to... such as both of mine (#39 & #105). I just assumed that was your standard response when you didn't have an answer. -
archiesteel at 03:37 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
@Baz: "archiesteel. You might want to be careful with the term "denialists". I read John Cook's conditions when I came here, and you are apparently "skating on thin ice"." I didn't call you a denialist, I said I've seen such tactics being used by denialists quite a bit. But, hey, at least you're speaking to me now! "BTW, I've "ignored" no other's comments other than yours" You haven't, but you've ignored most counter-points presented to you, such as the fact that the last five or even ten years are not enough to gauge a statistically significant climate trend. "and you know why." Yes, I do. You have no responses for my counter-arguments, as you demonstrate yet again. "Try and write calmly" I am extremely calm. In fact, I am on medication that prevents me from being agitated. :-/ I think you're simply mistaking intellectual incisiveness for emotional aggressivity. This is a rational debate, and it can be frustrating when one side does not play by the rule (i.e. refuses to address counter-arguments, uses logical fallacies, etc.) "rather than classic prose like, "you do not want to find the truth, you want truth to conform to your pre-made opinion...The fact that you refer to WUWT in your last post (instead of some scientifically accurate source) is the icing on the cake, really." Well, prove me wrong, then. Admit that you were wrong about changing your mind based on a perceived five-year trend, when such a period of time is much too short to make such a call. "It's ill-mannered. If you can't write civil then don't bother at all." "Civil discussion" doesn't mean I won't call you on your mistakes when you make them, and not when you refuse to admit them, cite scientifically-deficient sources, or misrepresent a temperature graph. In fact, I am making great efforts here to remain polite; if you want to see how uncivil I can be, I can give you a few links! I respect this forum and what it stands for, and in that spirit I will now apologize if I've been too forceful in my criticism of your position. I will also retract any speculation I've made as far as your motives go. In exchange, I hope you'll finally admit that the last five years - even the last ten years - represent too short a time period to warrant changing one's mind about the validity of AGW theory and whether or not the world is still warming. "You said you weren't going to add anymore, by the way!" You said you weren't going to respond to me, so I guess we're even. :-) -
michael sweet at 03:30 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
Although this graph shows a MWP that does not mean that it is the same as the northern hemishere MWP. Deniers like to look at a single graph, like figure A, and say here is the MWP. The problem is that the timing of this supposed MWP is different at different locations. When Mann adds up all the different graphs, the "Medieval warm periods" and "little ice ages" cancel each other out. This happens because they do not occur at the same time globally. This graph will be added to Mann's data. Its MWP will cancel out like the rest have. Most of the supposed MWP is just a bunch of local effects that occur at different times and are not globally significant. The current warming is Global and significant everywhere. -
archiesteel at 03:26 AM on 19 September 2010The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
@CBDunkerson: I don't think every skeptic truly believes what they say. I think many of them are "political" skeptics, who simply repeat the arguments they've seen on contrarian sites with little regard as to whether the information is correct or not. It is also probable there is a certain number of oil industry shills out there, considering how much money Koch Industries and such have put into Climate Denial propaganda (through conservative think tanks, notably). The money flow has been well-documented, and it's naive to believe that no portion of that money is going to a number of Internet foot soldiers. Needless to say, such thought mercenaries aren't concerned with the validity of the science in the least. That said, it is also highly likely that many of them *do* believe what they write. It is for these people we must engage with, as they are the likeliest to be convinced of the scientific reality of AGW. This is why civil debate is so important, and why we must be patient with people who challenge the science in good faith. So, in the interest of peace and good will, I'll offer Baz an olive branch. I'll all ask him is to keep an open mind, to consider that changing your mind based on a statistically insignificant period might not be the rational thing to do, and to be as skeptical (i.e. questioning) of what he reads here than what he reads on WUWT. As a lurker there, I look forward to see Baz challenge Anthony and co. on their various positions... -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Perhaps I should clarify something, it's unfortunate that some here think that, as believers in a certain theory, you are somehow self-consored in visiting a website which is the opposite to what you believe. This type of thinking pervades society, not just beliefs on the internet. If you are right wing in politics, then it's actually beneficial to understand what the left is saying. In fact, it's really important. However, if you hover somewhere around the middle, it's not just important, it's essential. I make no excuses at all for visiting WUWT (and I've posted there). Neither would I apologise (while there) for visiting (and posting) at realclimate and Tamino's Open Mind. So if some of you shameful people think that you're going to try and curtail me from visiting websites which shoq all side then you are really wasting your fingers tips. You REALLY have to understand that this issue of AGW needs discussion, debate, and resolution. If you strangely believe that the 'other side' should not be even visited then, believe me, you REALLY need to take a look at yourselves. You're not just closing your mind, your building a big wall where you cannot see anything but your own opinion, and the opinions of people who think just like you. It's actually dangerous. JMurphy, IF you had read my posts (IF!), then you may have seen that I have been reading THIS site for some days now - but that's not going to stop me reading teh opinions of others at WUWT. I heartily suggest you go there. Some people (ably qualified) write there (just as they do here) with interesting opinions and theories. archiesteel. You might want to be careful with the term "denialists". I read John Cook's conditions when I came here, and you are apparently "skating on thin ice". BTW, I've "ignored" no other's comments other than yours - and you know why. Try and write calmly rather than classic prose like, "you do not want to find the truth, you want truth to conform to your pre-made opinion...The fact that you refer to WUWT in your last post (instead of some scientifically accurate source) is the icing on the cake, really." It's ill-mannered. If you can't write civil then don't bother at all. You said you weren't going to add anymore, by the way! Daniel Bailey, I've already stated that I'm a sceptic, so my bias surely comes as no surprise, does it? Odd. I came here to learn what your beliefs were/are - I have made this plain time and again, I don't know how you've missed it. I will read your Joe Romm link (I've been there too!). However, I have stated my beliefs on the principle issue. I have even stated that if surface temperatures rise in the next five years then I will be back on board. But as I currently see no cause for alarm (especially with regard to OHC) then it's more likely that my early jump-of-ship may prove to be a correct one. As for my comment on Arctic ice for 2010, let's wait and see who's right, shall we? FYI, 'confirmation biases' are perfectly natural and excusable - on BOTH sides, it's human nature and can be witnessed plainly on this site as well as WUWT. However, refusing to listen to an opinion opposite to yours is also natural, but dangerous. -
archiesteel at 03:13 AM on 19 September 2010Should The Earth Be Cooling?
@KL: "The most recent 8-15 years is not cherry picking. 1-2 years is cherrypicking." So, is 8 as good as 15, then? How about 16, is that better or worse? How about 6? Hey, look at the last three years: Global Warming has restarted with a vengeance! I'm curious to hear your threshold for how many years is enough, and why it is so. -
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Rob, that's true, but WUWT did cover it earlier here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/28/does-piomass-verify/ -
muoncounter at 02:38 AM on 19 September 2010A South American hockey stick
#20:"CO2 is well mixed, I don't think that where the sources are located is what makes the difference." I wonder about the degree of mixing. Compare BarrowBarrow to Palmer Station; there are clear differences in seasonal amplitude as well as annual mean value between the hemispheres.
Prev 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 Next
