Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 Next
Comments 112551 to 112600:
-
Kim B at 17:48 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
@RSVP: Do you wonder about the net effect of Gore's flying also? Or do you feel that it should never be allowed to cost a little to gain a lot? -
Kim B at 17:47 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Since then Mt Kilimanjaro has shrunk even more, and is now no more than a small hill. (Sorry, couldn't resist :-) ) -
RSVP at 17:43 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Cant help wondering how much jet fuel it has taken to get the word out. -
JMurphy at 17:34 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
I see that thingadonta is another one fooled by Poptech's little list of "Papers (and other things)- many published by that not properly peer-reviewed Energy & Environment Social Science political 'journal' - that Poptech considers to be against 'alarmist' (or not, as the case may be, depending on Poptech's views) AGW, despite what some of the actual authors of some of those papers think". Bad move, thingadonta. Poptech will be along, spamming, in 3....2....1... -
David Horton at 17:32 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
And if I remember correctly, the hypothesis that Kilimanjaro was all down to forest clearing and nothing to do with climate change has itself been rejected. Why anyone would suggest that Kilimanjaro was not responding to warming at least to some extent, whether other exacerbating factors were in play or not, escapes me I'm afraid. The attacks on AIT are to do with its effectiveness in arousing public awareness, which was the intention of the film. Presenting climate change research in a simple and understandable way. The deniers, and the energy companies, couldn't be having that, hence the attacks. Can you imagine the result if the popular denier stuff was subject to the same attacks as AIT - does anyone seriously imagine they would come out of it like AIT - pure as the driven snow?Moderator Response: Indeed, there is a Skeptical Science argument post on Kilimanjaro. Type Kilimanjaro into the Search field at the top left of this page. -
Berényi Péter at 17:26 PM on 19 August 2010Temp record is unreliable
#121 scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 19 August, 2010 no one doubts for a moment that data in the series has to be adjusted Agreed. However, everyone with a basic training in science and a bit of common sense would doubt the right time for adjustments is before data are put into the raw dataset. If it is done to numerous Canadian sites we can check by Environment Canada, there is no reason to assume it is not a general practice, also done to most stations there is no easy way to recover genuine raw data for. The straight, simple and honest path would be not to do it ever, not in a single case. Include all the necessary metadata there along with truly raw measurements and do adjustments later, putting adjusted values into a separate file. From the Tech Terms Dictionary: Raw data Raw data is unprocessed computer data. This information may be stored in a file, or may just be a collection of numbers and characters stored on somewhere in the computer's hard disk. For example, information entered into a database is often called raw data. The data can either be entered by a user or generated by the computer itself. Because it has not been processed by the computer in any way, it is considered to be "raw data." To continue the culinary analogy, data that has been processed by the computer is sometimes referred to as "cooked data." Therefore it is a valid statement that the majority of data in GHCN are cooked. -
RSVP at 17:25 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Marcus 3 If Man has affected climate, why does it appear so insurmountable to fix? And if fixing it is so easy, what exactly is the "alarm" about? There was a time when we blamed such things on the "gods"... now we are confusing a sense of control with unabated hubris. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:05 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
By the way, Poptech's silly list is a prime example of the asymmetric nature of arguing about climate change. It's very easy to concoct a story and then repeat it endlessly, the invention only needs to be done once and repetitions can then be dropped willy-nilly with very little effort, consuming endless time and patience while folks attempt to put the smelly genie back in the bottle. -
Paulie200 at 17:02 PM on 19 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
Someday, if he achieves the fame he deserves, the mention of the name "Monckton" is going to have the same connotation as "Piltdown" in the history of science. Or maybe he doesn't even deserve the infamy, it's really just the same old fraud and charade, carefully selected bits cobbled together to demonstrate something that never existed. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:00 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Serious, peer-reviewed papers, with serious treatments, via Poptech: "The greenhouse effect: Chicken Little and our response to global warming" Alarmist Misrepresentations of the Findings of the Latest Scientific Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Science, much? Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation Australia's Role in International Climate Negotiations: Kyoto and Beyond Ecological Science as a Creation Story Taxation of greenhouse gases: why Kyoto will not be implemented And many, many more. Pretty muddled. "Supporting skepticism of AGW" does not equal speaking to the science of anthropogenic climate change. Political rehashing of the Kyoto Protocol has nothing to do with science. That list needs some serious editing. Once all the political stuff is sliced away as well as scientific papers of dubious relevance to climate change such as those dealing w/11 year solar cycles and the like, how many are left? -
thingadonta at 16:28 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Sorry here is the 'minor role of sun' list: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/papers-on-minor-role-of-the-sun-in-recent-climate-change/ -
thingadonta at 16:27 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
#11 Doug/GPWayne: Here are 750 'virtually non-existant' peer reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW, or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html. Here is a list of 'virtually non-existant' peer reviewed papers refuting/downgrading the role of the sun, rather than humans in climate change. Doran's statement is a statement of convenience, not reality. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:19 PM on 19 August 2010Long Term Certainty
Adaptation: "Cabin pressure may change." Nice words, hiding a myriad of nasty details. Useful for feeling good. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:17 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Doran et al would have found something else to submit to journals -if- there had not been a concerted effort to convey the impression of doubt and confusion in the scientific community. This is not controversial, see what Luntz advised the US GOP w/regard to messaging earlier this decade. It's just another case of how easy it is to convey misdirection, how very difficult it can be to undo resulting damage. A much larger version of the sort of thing we see on climate blogs, really. It takes just a couple of seconds to rattle off "it's been cooling since 1998," longer to (yet again) show how that's wrong. So if we don't like to see time wasted undoing synthetic controversies, don't do make 'em up in the first place. -
thingadonta at 16:10 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Owl 905: "That's a different statement" No it isnt, the statements are the same. Let me put it another way, if the following were true, would Doran have anything to write about in journals? "there is virtually no debate on the rate, degree, and future effects of global warming, nor the role played by human activities, amongst those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long term climate processes". -
Marcus at 16:07 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
RSVP, if Mans fingerprints are all over the climate change event in question (&, in spite of your claims to the contrary, they are), then it is Man who I will point to as the most likely suspect. I won't-like you-look at a man who has a massive bullet wound in his chest & declare that he obviously died due to being struck by lightning! -
omnologos at 15:53 PM on 19 August 2010Long Term Certainty
about SL's moderator response to #7 I thought everybody agreed that all efforts implemented so far, and especially the European ones, were too little, too slow, too late and too much of a whited sepulchre to be taken as example of what serious mitigation would look like... usually one is presented with a choice between climate catastrophe and the wholesale redesign of the economy... that's why I for one am much more interested in adaptation -
Doug Bostrom at 15:41 PM on 19 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
That's a radiometer being graphed there, RSVP, if you're looking at the green line. Not temperature. The line jumps up and down swiftly because the sun is being intermittently occluded by clouds. -
RSVP at 15:08 PM on 19 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
KR I invite you to take a look at this webpage... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_collector Note the graph found halfway down that shows temp vs. minutes and how quickly temperature rises and drops (and how peak values coincide with those on the Moon). Whereas in 225 you attribute the higher temperatures found on the Moon as having to do with how long the Lunar day is, as you can see from the graph, response times are in the order of minutes such that your argument is illbound. As far as what you say about albedo... albedo refers to the planet as a whole. If you were standing on a sand dune in the Sahara on a sunny day as compared to the Moons Sea of Tranquility, albedo also has nothing to do with this difference in temperature. So referring to my question in 224, I cant say I am satisfied with your answer. -
MattJ at 14:41 PM on 19 August 2010Long Term Certainty
E-e-e-e-e-ek!!! "shouldn’t we better cut emissions"? Do they really speak English that way Down Under?? "Hadn't we better cut emissions" would be immediately understood as correct over here.Moderator Response: G'donyamate for picking that. My apologies. SL -
Daniel Bailey at 14:36 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
If you heard someone yell over an intercom:"Hey, everybody: a jet plane just crashed into the building! Get out as fast as you can!"...
Call me an alarmist, but I'm going to leave the building first, then assess the veracity of the statement. In that order. Staying put and possibly winning a Darwin Award would seem to preclude further evolving... The Yooper -
batsvensson at 14:28 PM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
"It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before." This is an urban myth. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:27 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Along the lines of David Horton's remarks as well as those of ms2et, thinking about the career of Art Meyerhoff is instructive. Here's a fork in the road, which path does not lead to a dead end? Spencer and the small handful of legitimate scientists manning their barricade remind me in some ways of Meyerhoff. Intelligent, trained, creative, dogged, wrong, but in most cases making a good faith scientific effort without resorting to out-of-band rhetoric. There's the difference between most of this tiny group and a much larger rabble not really interested in science. Meyerhoff had deep, fundamental objections to the emerging mainstream picture of plate tectonics. He mounted a vigorous, forceful effort to complete a different picture but he never, ever accused his scientific opponents of fraud, of malfeasance, of malign intent. Although he and my father were in polar opposition over the interpretation of newly emerging observations, they could share a dinner table and go on to have perhaps too many drinks without ever saying a thing they'd regret or have a hard time owning up to later, when the research dust had settled. Miekol Australia may not be as stuffed as you think, though whether they'll continue selling their coal abroad is an important detail. See "Australia strategy for Zero Emissions by 2020". 2020? Maybe that's farfetched, but there's a plan with the marvelous virtue of existence, as opposed to hopeless despair. -
batsvensson at 14:24 PM on 19 August 2010Long Term Certainty
Are the available climate models able to take the "present state" and based on this calculate backward in time to say 1800 and replicate the record we have? -
RSVP at 14:18 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Both options, cooling and warming seem to generate alarist reactions, and in either case, it would surely be blamed on Man; yet if it were shown to be due to Nature, Man would surely attempt to wrest the trend. Someday perhaps we will realize we are just another animal on this planet... maybe after evolving a little further. -
owl905 at 14:07 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
thingadonta, misquoting the article and then disagreeing with the misquote is difficult to accept. It's not, as you wrote:- "debate about....the role played by human activity It's: “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played" That's a different statement. "Largely nonexistent" is fine. Science never produces unanimity: example, Robert Bakker still disputes that the KT Extinction was caused by a meteor impact. Nor is consensus about the end of arguments. If it were, the equivalent of a scientific filibuster would be on notice 7x24 to prevent consensus. 'Consensus' is 'sufficient agreement that the evidence is strong enough to warrant action'. Scientific consensus on AGW was achieved 20 years ago (the Lintzens, Lomborgs, Pielke's, McIntyres and Monctons notwithstanding). The evidence leading to that consensus has been fortified since then by adding more evidence, withstanding the challenges, and witnessing the trend. -
David Horton at 14:03 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Worth noting that consensus arises from the evidence, not the reverse, and the reverse is the line that deniers have been pushing for years. Was thinking yesterday about another example of consensus, one used (like Galileo) quite incorrectly by the deniers, and that is continental drift. If I remember correctly when it was first proposed, as a theory, it depended entirely on (a) the shapes of Africa and South America and (b) some biogeographic distribution puzzles. I can remember it first being discussed in the 1960s in my Zoology Dept, and discussed along the lines of "Well, yes, cute theory, very ingenious, but what would be the mechanism, and there are other explanations for the puzzles". Over the next few years evidence began to accumulate as sea floors were mapped, sediments and rocks dated, the nature of tectonic plates and the Earth's crust better understood, that it just gradually became a matter of consensus. There was no grand announcement, just that all of the objections had been removed, all the mechanisms understood, no one had come up with a single piece of evidence that contradicted the theory, and the idea of continents fixed in time and space just faded away. That is how consensus works (evolution of course being another major example) in science, and that is how it has worked for climate change. -
johnd at 13:37 PM on 19 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
muoncounter at 10:32 AM, the abstract for the "new research" from 2008 that you cite actually states :- "A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays." So 2 groups studied one solar cycle, cycle 22, and arrived at certain conclusions. The authors of the research cited rather than finding corroborative evidence for such conclusions being reached, ended up estimating that less than 23% of the change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 was due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays. Unless the abstract is wrongly worded it seems to me that the authors DO confirm that cosmic rays DO affect cloud cover, perhaps as much as 23% they claim at a 95% confidence level. That is hardly a rebuttal. -
villabolo at 13:05 PM on 19 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
@#2. chriscanaris: So which cherries do I pick? @#6. chriscanaris: Anne-Marie, I have no quarrel with the trends over thirty years which your post deals with. However, in the context of climate change, thirty years is really too short a time span. You pick all the cherries, chris. And, of course, 30 years is less than ideal but with things happening fast you'll be surprised. First, a general explanation, and then a concrete example. It's a matter of focus. When we focus on the small picture the 'eyes' of our mind tends to get stuck on certain things and our vision blurs. That's when it's time to step back and get a broader look at all the facts, even general facts that don't seem to be related to the subject we were focusing on. Those seemingly unrelated subjects really are of relevance, they just don't seem to be precisely because we're over focused on a small part of the picture at any one time. Here's an example of what I mean. Let's say I'm meditating on the Arctic shrink and I get to wondering why some aspect of it isn't happening as I thought it was supposed to. Forget about it, pull back, and start looking at other aspects of Global Warming even if they are seemingly unrelated to the Arctic. I would meditate on Thermal Lag. the time delay between CO2 coming about with some increase in temperature but not all. My understanding is that we're supposed to get 1*F extra in the next 30 years even if we stop burning all fossil fuels this very minute. That's Global Average. Arctic average would double. How will that effect the ice cap melt that you were so worried about moments before? (If it's not already gone in the summertime by then)? Moral of the story. Thermal Lag, and other 'minor' issues, will make the Arctic ice cap melt you were worried about moot. Rest assured, it's going to happen, and probably worse. We just don't know all the side streets that AGW will travel on. -
thingadonta at 13:05 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
"debate about....the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. This statement is entirely incorrect. Virtually every paper published by climate scientists debates and dicusses the relative degree to which human activity is affecting climate, overall climate sensitivity, future projections, past climate changes, and so on. The wording is very misleading, and more or less states that we know everything. Most climate science papers take it for granted that human activities are changing the climate, but they do debate climate response to these activities, all the time. So how can there be 'no debate' about the 'role played by human activity'. This is a typical exaggeration/distortion which causes so many skeptics to keep being skepical. Wording should be something like: "there is much debate about the degree and nature of climate response to human activity, however there is no debate that human activities are actually affecting climate in the first place". -
ms2et at 12:51 PM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
“...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. If this is the case, then why do so many suitably qualified scientists disagree with the AGW hypothesis (Lindzen, Spencer etc...)? If the unremarkable rise in late 20th century mean global temperature anomalies was caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, then why hasn't that rise continued to follow CO2's onward march? There must be a good reason.Moderator Response: [Graham] 3% of scientists working in related disciplines cannot be described as 'many qualified scientists'. It is a minority, and even then the nuance suggests not all of them support your position. Lindzen, for example, does not take issue with AGW, he disputes sensitivity. And temperatures have continued to rise during the last decade, and claiming otherwise is not going to stop the ice melting. -
miekol at 11:51 AM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
" There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. " In this case we're stuffed. The Chinese, the Indians, the South American nations and African nations are not going to stop burning coal. And all the 1st world including Australia are not going to stop using petroleum driven cars. Armageddon is upon us. Its 11.48 am. This comment will be deleted before 1 pm :-) Its on topic but I guess its slightly political :-) -
Doug Bostrom at 11:34 AM on 19 August 2010Models are unreliable
New (model) model comes online: BOULDER —Scientists can now study climate change in far more detail with powerful new computer software released by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). ... The CESM builds on the Community Climate System Model, which NCAR scientists and collaborators have regularly updated since first developing it more than a decade ago. The new model enables scientists to gain a broader picture of Earth’s climate system by incorporating more influences. Using the CESM, researchers can now simulate the interaction of marine ecosystems with greenhouse gases; the climatic influence of ozone, dust, and other atmospheric chemicals; the cycling of carbon through the atmosphere, oceans, and land surfaces; and the influence of greenhouse gases on the upper atmosphere. In addition, an entirely new representation of atmospheric processes in the CESM will allow researchers to pursue a much wider variety of applications, including studies of air quality and biogeochemical feedback mechanisms. Press release Release includes this remarkable picture (click for full resolution):
"Modeling climate’s complexity. This image, taken from a larger simulation of 20th century climate, depicts several aspects of Earth’s climate system. Sea surface temperatures and sea ice concentrations are shown by the two color scales. The figure also captures sea level pressure and low-level winds, including warmer air moving north on the eastern side of low-pressure regions and colder air moving south on the western side of the lows."
-
ProfMandia at 10:49 AM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
"Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter." Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego -
Doug Bostrom at 10:38 AM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Constructive comments from MattJ! Regarding excessive tidiness, it helps to remember these "basic" treatments will be ultimately be presented in a tabbed format, w/"intermediate" and "advanced" presentations available for those wishing to delve into the details. Meanwhile, the acid bath of freewheeling comment anneals the work in progress. (ok, that's a pretty horribly mixed metaphor. How about "furnace" instead of "acid bath?") -
muoncounter at 10:32 AM on 19 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
#15: cosmic rays again? "Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate," That's a large leap, with little to support it. A couple of rebuttals follow. The new research shows that change in cloud cover over the Earth does not correlate to changes in cosmic ray intensity. Neither does it show increases and decreases during the sporadic bursts and decreases in the cosmic ray intensity which occur regularly. published the first comprehensive modeling of how the sun might indirectly thin cloud cover and thus warm the planet. It suggests that cosmic rays are not up to the task by two orders of magnitude. -
chris1204 at 10:30 AM on 19 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
owl905: you're imputing motives that ain't there. I'm genuinely interested in making sense of a welter of conflicting claims. I asked an honest question and I thank Doug_Bostrom, mdenison and others for coming up with a some papers which I'll be looking at with great interest (which is one of the reasons I like this site). CBDunkerson: your comments about the global anomaly trend certainly fit an eyeballing of the graph - I wonder if anyone's looked at the statistical significance. I'm thinking of something on the lines of tobyjoyce's presentation of Tamino's reconstruction. -
MattJ at 10:19 AM on 19 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
This basic version makes some good points, and makes some of them very well: I was particularly pleased with the line, "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes” But that is a long line, not well parsed by our target audience. So I would have reworded it something like this, in addition to including the exact quote: "For all practical purposes, the debate (about whether or not man is causing global warming aka climate change) is nonexistent among those scientists who understand the nuances and scientific bases of climate processes". We don't really need "long-term" in "long-term climate processes", because by definition, climate is long term. The confusion between 'weather' and 'climate' should be addressed somewhere else, probably earlier in the same basic version of the rebuttal. We need 'bases', not 'basis', since there really is more than one: there are, for example, 1) thermodynamics and 2) the quantum theory of the interaction of matter and radiation. We need "for all practical purposes", because even Americans who have never heard the word, are under the heavy influence of 'Pragmatism': they are quick to believe what appears practical/pragmatic to them, and unreasonably slow to believe anything else. Also, putting this at front allows us to get rid of the weakening epithet 'largely' in front of 'nonexistent'. The skeptics are always very quick to take unfair advantage of such weakening, making it look like hedging rather than scientific accuracy. Buy my wording is no less scientifically accurate, yet more vigorous and therefore more memorable and persuasive. Such vigor and persuasiveness helps them believe what they should have believed anyway but don't: the time for that debate is long over, the time for drastic action is already upon us. Finally, I have to caution about making the scientific method sound more tidy than it really is: just think of all the hypotheses that fell by the wayside, only to come back in modified form, such as the 'luminiferous ether', which fell away for only a few decades before it was resurrected as the vacuum in QED, which itself is a very untidy theory, NOT a theory that "makes sense", since even today, it still requires the arbitrary exclusion of divergent integrals, an act that has never had a satisfactory theoretical explanation. -
MattJ at 10:01 AM on 19 August 2010Plain English climate science - now live at Skeptical Science
Answering CoalGeologist, #8: there are already several excellent sites on logical fallacies and how to rebut them. My personal favorite is still http://fallacyfiles.org/ which is one of the very few (to give one example of its superiority over the others) to correctly describe the difference between a relevant personal attack and an irrelevant ad hominem. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:54 AM on 19 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Models say less frequent but more intense rainfall. Weather statistics say: The River Niger - the third largest in Africa - reached its highest level for 80 years, said the regional river authority, the ABN. But the rains came too late to rescue this year's crops, which have already failed. "This year was a double whammy," Christy Collins of the aid agency Mercy Corps told the Associated Press news agency. In most years, even if the country's primary crop fail, at least the secondary crops survive, she explained. This year there was so little rain during the growing season that not only did the fields of millet not bloom, but the secondary greens used for animal fodder also failed. Not only are many villagers going short of food, but their livestock - their only asset - have died off. BBC "Niger hunger 'worse than 2005'" Wasn't somebody talking on this site about the putative beneficial effects of climate change on states on the southern border of the Sahara? -
Doug Bostrom at 09:40 AM on 19 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Now here's an interesting perspective on statistics, offered by climate scientist Steven Sherwood: The “loading the dice” analogy is becoming popular but it misses something very important: climate change also allows unprecedented (in human history) things to happen. It is more like painting an extra spot on each face of one of the dice, so that it goes from 2 to 7 instead of 1 to 6. This increases the odds of rolling 11 or 12, but also makes it possible to roll 13. What happens then? Since we have never had to cope with 13’s, this could prove far worse than simply loading the dice toward more 11’s and 12’s. I’m not sure whether or not what is happening in Russia or Pakistan is a “13″ yet, but 13’s will eventually arrive (and so will 14’s, if carbon emissions continue to rise). Via Andy Revkin -
Marcus at 09:15 AM on 19 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
So where's the stratospheric warming Ken? If, as you claim, the sun is solely responsible for the warming of the last 30-60 years, then we'd expect to see a warming *throughout* the atmosphere-yet instead the Stratosphere is cooling, whilst only the troposphere is accumulating heat. You can perform all the mathematical chicanery you want, but all the available evidence shows that both sunspot & TSI levels have been *falling* for the last 30 years, which would suggest a *decline* in the amount of heat accumulating in the biosphere. Yet instead we're seeing a bucking of that trend which is occuring with a strong linear correlation to the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere! -
Andrew Mclaren at 09:01 AM on 19 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
As a digital artist myself and one working extensively with maps, it is easy to spot a bit of Photoshop work in the first (top left) panel of Monckton's maps dated 17/01/1980. The characteristic digital artefact of Photoshop's "Polar Inversion" filter is apparent around the North Pole of that map, with the pixels in a radial pattern there. It's a pretty basic transform that allows a cylindrical map to be turned into a polar map (Stereographic or AZED-type). What's been composited there? A pretty cack-handed effort I'd say. The others may well have been retouched more convincingly. But his efforts may indeed be all about the most deliberate and flagrant red herrings to waste the maximum possible amount of everybody's time... -
michael sweet at 08:06 AM on 19 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
With regards to the denier claim that the ice is higher than predicted, we might want to revisit Dougs' post stating predicted ice values to see what was really predicted. I see values ranging from 4.2 -5.7 x 10^6km2 (the 1.0 value is not a scientific prediction). It appears that the actual value will be near the middle of that range, unless something unusual happens. WUWT predicted 5.8 10^6km2 (and then changed to 5.6), that is what is is today so their prediction was too high. -
scaddenp at 08:04 AM on 19 August 2010Temp record is unreliable
BP - no one doubts for a moment that data in the series has to be adjusted but you seem to assume that data adjustment is evidence for global conspiracy to create global warming but you havent investigated the adjustment for any single station so far as I am aware. Take Wellington. Original station close to sea level. Then it was moved to met office on top of nearby hill. ("Proof of global cooling. Adjustments arent required"). Later it was moved to airport at sealevel. ("Conspiracy to create warming by moving station. Must make adjustment"). NONE of this history is apparent in the raw data. In fact none of it accessible via internet. Since you are so sure that a station has be incorrectly adjusted, then surely the way to prove this is get the adjustment procedure from custodian and check it against the GHCN manual. None of your graphs mean anything until basis for adjustment has been audited for individual station. You can claim a coup if you find just ONE piece of fraud, so surely worth effort of writing directly to custodian and a lot more cost effective than analysis that shows that adjustments are made - we know that. Papers written on what, how, and how effective these are. -
NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
As an aside - I agree with a previous poster (sorry I can't find it right now): It's very odd that some skeptics will say "We can adapt to whatever climate changes occur", and yet in the same breath say "It will destroy us to make the changes needed to reduce CO2 levels". -
NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Pete Ridley - Your statement "Humans can exert no control over this on a global or even regional basis" is both very curious and quite unsupported. We're pumping 29 GT of CO2 into the atmosphere, with noticeable effects - global warming, ocean acidification, arctic melt, etc. Some of the mitigation proposals involve equally large inputs into the climate system. Dougs links are also relevant. Throwing up ones hands and saying "We can do nothing" is simply a call to inaction. Nonsense! Changing our CO2 output is possible at fairly small cost and possibly large reward ($$$ reward, aside from the obvious benefits of avoiding more drastic climate change). Pete, you've argued both "It's not happening" and "It's happening, there's nothing we can do". I find that quite contradictory... which is it? -
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
RSVP - the moon at the equator ranges from 100K at night to 390K peak daytime temperatures, mean of 220K (-53 °C), with the large range due to the 28 day rotation, leading to two weeks each of heating and cooling. Temps at 85 degrees N are 70K, 230K, mean 130K. The Earth temperature ranges from 184K to 331K, mean of 287.2K (14 °C). The Earth has a higher albedo than the moon - without the greenhouse effect it would be much colder. Given the diurnal differences between the Earth and Moon, comparing max temps is a red herring. Mean temps are what's relevant in comparing energy flows - I would have thought that rather obvious. As to experience - many of your postings pose extremely simple analogies that don't incorporate the actual numerical relationships in the climate; relative amounts of AHF to insolation, amounts of IR versus convection/evaporation, trying to compare heating a house to the entire atmospheric column, your rather non-physical 'flavored joules' that don't behave like other joules, etc. Those missing pieces make your analogies false comparisons, essentially Straw Men - they are confusing at best, misleading/misdirecting at worst, and don't add to the discussion. They simply don't reflect experience with the math and relationships relevant to climate change. I would encourage you to look at the actual relationships (insofar as they are understood), and consider/discuss what you might see as issues with those, rather than generating yet another ill-fitting analogy. -
JMurphy at 07:31 AM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Further to the rice yield question, the figures from the UN FAO show the last two years (2006 and 2007) having declining growths of yield of under 1%, and declining growths since 2004. The figures that Berényi Péter prefers (from the USDA), show declining growth of yield since 2007 - last year given, 2008. Even using those figures, however, this decade (2000s) seems to be showing less average yearly growth of yield than any decade since the records started in 1960. -
mdenison at 07:29 AM on 19 August 2010Is Arctic Sea Ice 'Just Fine'?
2. chriscanaris: Do we have proxies for ice sheet extent predating this period? History of sea ice in the Arctic Leonid Polyak et al. This paper has a lot of information and references that may help Chris. As an example "Fig. 12. Comparison of a multi-proxy reconstruction of sea-ice extent in the Nordic Seas during 1200–1997AD" appears relevant to your question.
Prev 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 Next
