Recent Comments

Prev  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  Next

Comments 113251 to 113300:

113251. muoncounter at 11:32 AM on 9 August 2010
        Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
        #53: scaddenp is correct. Oil and gas form at agonizingly slow rates. There are numerous estimates of the ultimate quantity of oil existing on earth; take 1750 billion Bbl as a guesstimate. From UMichigan GS265. Gb=Billion Bbls The oldest known oil may be about 540 million years in age. That's a ballpark formation rate of about 3500 Bbl/year -- against an average consumption rate of 5+ billion Bbl/year from the late 1800s on. (same source: 761 GBbl cumulative production in 130 years, starting around 1865 thru 1995). So we are indeed taking it out MUCH faster than it gets put in.
113252. Doug Bostrom at 11:24 AM on 9 August 2010
        1934 - hottest year on record
        What's your point, Broadlands? For that matter, why are you pointing us to a scan of a National Geographic article from 1976 as some kind of authoritative source for temperature data?
113253. kdkd at 11:13 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Pete Ridley #92 Or somewhere between adelady's simple explanation, and the more complex one in the moderator's response: ENSO is a process which moves heat around the planet surface. So if heat is used in one place it will by necessity not be used elsewhere (law of conservation of energy). So this means that ENSO can not explain the rising temperatures, as there has to be an energy input in order for this to happen. This could come from a few places, including the sun, volcanic activity (transfer of deep heat to surface) and greenhouse gasses. Unfortunately for your argument, it's pretty well established that greenhouse gasses (largely CO2 from fossil fuels) are the only reasonable explanation we have left.
113254. Broadlands at 11:07 AM on 9 August 2010
        1934 - hottest year on record
        PETER... The data have been corrected, homogenized, and re-corrected so much in so many ways that they are almost unrecognizable. Then, there are at least four sets of US temperatures: (1) NCDC, All 48 states, summed, and averaged. (2) NCDC, All 48 states, summed by regions, and averaged (3) The 48 state averages re-weighted and averaged by NCDC. (4) All 48 states, weighted, summed and averaged using the ORIGINAL US Weather Bureau monthly reports. Comparing any of the first three with #4, ALL of them are LOWER than the values that were measured and weighted prior to ~1950. ALL of them show NCDC temperature departures for every month of every year that are almost twice as low in the winter months as in the summer months. You point to 1934 as the third warmest year? The NCDC reported 1934 at 54.8°C. But, the ORIGINAL US Weather Bureau data for 1934 will show that it was 55.1°F, 0.3°F warmer. That puts 1934 in second place...record highs in 10 states. 1921 is in first place...record highs in 10 states.. all different states.. 1998 is third...record highs in 9 states, again all different from those in either 1921 or 1934. Evidence? Read these excerpts from the 'raw' US Weather Bureau official reports: "On the basis of weighted averages for the several sec- tions, the year 1940 was normal as to mean temperature; the value for the year was 53.6°, as compared with a mean of 53.7° for the period 1891 to 1940, inclusive, and the extremes of 55.6° in 1921 and 51.8° in 1917" or this... "On the basis of weighted averages the year 1941 was practically normal in respect to mean temperature, the departure being less than 1° above the mean value of 53.7°. The extremes of temperature on the weighted basis were 55.6° in 1921, and 51.8° in 1917. or this... The mean temperature for the year 1942, derived by weighting the averages for the varying areas of the several States, was exactly normal, being 53.2°,or the same as the average for the 1886 to 1942 period, during which time the highest mean annual temperature was 55.6° in 1921 and the lowest, 51.8° in 1917. The NCDC however now has 'corrected' them all... 1921 at 54.5°F, 1.1° lower 1917 at 50.8°F, 1.0° lower 1940 at 52.6°F, 1.0° lower 1942 at 52.6°F, 0.6° lower.
113255. adelady at 09:38 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        #92 Pete Ridley. "Perhaps the real culprit causing those global weather events that are being misinterpreted as human-made global climate change is El Ni˜no and not our use of fossil fuels." Have you not heard the expression? Climate trains the boxer, weather throws the punches.
113256. JMurphy at 08:55 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Don't forget that as the earth warms (leading to higher and more common temperature records), there will also be more precipitation : As Earth gets warmer, large regions will experience heavier rain and snowfall as weather becomes generally more intense, according to a new study. LiveScience I wonder how many so-called skeptics are continuing to ignore reality in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan or China ? Maybe they'll be trying to convince themselves that it was just the same about 30 years ago, or whenever.
113257. Doug Bostrom at 07:21 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        I myself can't say what might work, actually thougtfull. Simply bludgeoning people with clean facts clearly does not work. Analogies only seem to work if they're deployed in a dialog with receptivity in play. Another disturbing finding is that repeating corrections over and over again to people who can't fit that new information into their system tends to harden misconceptions. This suggests that simply droning on and on in the same way is not only pointless but actively counterproductive. How to fit this information into communications efforts? This is a subject of study itself. I don't have the expertise to offer practical advice for others to use. I've heard of "Web of Belief" but have not read it, will now scurry off to find out more. Thanks!
113258. actually thoughtful at 07:00 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Pete Ridley, I absolutely concur that if Spencer were in a room with 99 climate scientists not afraid to face the results of their work, he would end up red-faced (and embarrassed). Now perhaps I am obtuse, but I have no idea what error you are finding in comparing a country's national heat records to the hottest temperature in that nation's history. Would you care to simply state your point, or do you prefer riddles? Or is it irksome that your points, once established, are fairly quickly refuted? Pete if you have some evidence for your stance by all means share it. Randomly posting diatribes (well documented, to be sure) that don't inform the debate seems pointless to me. As near as I can tell, the original poster's point that we can assume 2 or 3 degrees of warming over the next 50-100 years remains unchallenged by your comments. If you seek to challenge that, I would expect to see some evidence that CO2 is not changing the earth's equilibrium temperature (and of course the explanation for what is changing the equilibrium) or the negative (ie cooling) feedback that the climate researchers have missed. To date you have us trying to figure out your riddles and sending us on wild goose chases to your content-light posts weeks ago about whether Roy Spencer will be embarrassed or not in a room full of real climate scientists!
113259. Doug Bostrom at 06:53 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        I do absolutely depend on the world "continuum," Pete. The number line really works for me. I can't play your word game regarding heat records because you're a little too obscure with your rules. In any case, those are not my claims, they're readings passed along by a meteorologist.
113260. Pete Ridley at 06:46 AM on 9 August 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        As the moderator took exception to some of the quotes I offered in my previous version of this comment I have removed what I believe was objected to so you’ll have to refer to the article itself for the full context. Here’s the revision. What do you get when you put 99 climate scientists who support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis in a room with a sceptical climate scientist like Dr. Roy Spencer – red faces? I think that Claude Sandroff (Note 1 - American Thinker) would agree with this. In his article “Global Warming, R.I.P” he reviews Spencer’s latest book on the subject (Note 2). Readwhat he says when talking about “.. this highly skilled climatologist and his The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World's Top Climate Scientists, .. ”. Sanroff concludes “Some .. Westerners might in their affluence be able to afford expensive energy alternatives to power -- things like wind and solar that don't directly involve the emission of CO2. But the rest of the world cannot. Cheap, affordable energy, the kind that comes from coal, natural gas and oil, is a prerequisite for any society to rise economically. Spencer seems thrilled to be able to tell the developing world that they have a free pass to burn hydrocarbons and prosper”. I’m sure that you’ll all love reading the rest of Sandroff’s article and delight in reading Spencer’s book. It’s “Written in a style that should be attractive to both warming newcomers and scientists from other fields,” so is ideal for the inexpert contributors to this blog. Spencer’s book does just what is being called for in the “Communicating climate science in plain English” thread. NOTES: 1) see http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/global_warming_rip.html 2) see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-how-mother-nature-fooled-the-world%E2%80%99s-top-climate-scientists/ Best regards, Pete Ridley.
113261. Pete Ridley at 06:35 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Moderator, ref. comment 92, I think that you may have overlooked the relebvant topic in my comment – weather events not global warming. Doug, ref. comment #93, perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in that series of “facts” you presented in your “continuum” (you do like that word don’t you). In every case bar two of your “National heat records set in 2010” you claim each had its/they “ .. hottest temperature in its history .. ” or words to that effect. Can you spot the error? Perhaps “ .. your imagination is getting ahead of you .. ” (see #85). Perhaps you and “actually thoughtful” might like to have a look at my comment #162 on the “What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?”. Best regards, Pete Ridley
113262. actually thoughtful at 06:29 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Thanks Doug, I am not really accusing you of being a pessimist in this regard. But as you have looked at the intractability of the skeptics/deniers - what thoughts do you have on moving a given skeptic towards rationality? I have not yet found a formula that works. Ideology seems to trump reality every time. BTW - WV Quine wrote an amazing prescient book on this subject (in 1978!) called The Web of Belief. It is dense but I whole-heartedly recommend it to you. http://www.amazon.com/Web-Belief-W-V-Quine/dp/0075536099
113263. Doug Bostrom at 06:12 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        No, actually thoughtfull, I don't believe that (heh!). Research strongly suggests that there are some strong internal psychological barriers to acceptance and integration of information producing uncomfortable feelings w/regard to personal behavior as well as ideological perceptions of the world. I think it's useful to consider this information if we're trying to stick w/talking about climate research and how it affects public policy from a scientific perspective. Leaving aside known commercial considerations, the reaction of many contrarians to climate research is mysterious on its face. This inexplicable resistance often ends up being dumped into a bucket of empty speculation about "stupidity" or "ignorance" or even malicious intent. No research supports such thinking. Research suggests that contrarian attitudes are best predicted in the absence of any other information by political and ideological thinking, that such counterfactual worldviews do not correlate as well with education or other personal attributes. Not to say this correlation is 1:1, just that it's quite statistically significant. My belief is that the same person who will go to the mat denying commonly accepted and even ancient and quite scientifically uncontroversial research findings in a public forum and will even use invective etc. in doing so would willingly volunteer altruistic acts in a different setting. There's nothing separating us other than we might be tested in our civility if we bump into our beliefs or things that touch on our beliefs in conversation. Anecdotal evidence from climate discussion threads seems to support this notion.
113264. actually thoughtful at 05:42 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Doug, Are you holding the position that no events, facts or education can change people's deepset beliefs? I understand the pessimism due to the facts on the ground right now (ie folks like Pete Ridley exist) - but isn't that to harsh a judgement? Don't you think some notable percentage can be swayed by logic, facts and reality?
113265. Doug Bostrom at 05:42 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Pete you'll have to stay the dark by yourself, or at least short of my company. I can't join you. I can only suggest you set some sort of internal metric where you might reevaluate your conclusion and then keep an eye out for additional weather phenomena exceeding any recorded in the instrumental record. I'll describe a little bit the continuum in my own mind. If I see a record-breaking temperature in a given city, it means nothing. If I see a spate of exceptionally hot days in a given city, that too means nothing. If I see a spate of record breaking temperatures in a given city, that's a little bit attention-getting. If I see an extended spate of weather in a given city breaking historical records, it's notable but can't be used as the basis for any conclusions. If I see multiple cities in multiple countries breaking historical records, that's noteworthy but still can't be used as a open-shut case for making claims about climate short of other evidence. If I see all of the above plus other phenomena such as historically unprecedented floods in a number of locations, my eyebrows start to go up. I still can't form any conclusion, but these things need to be integrated into what I know of what we're doing to the atmosphere. They comport with global temperature increases as well as a host of other phenomena. Such events can't really be ignored, for after all, what if the same pattern emerges again in 5 years? Should I ignore it then? When would I pay attention? So this year is a data point, a notable one. National heat records set in 2010 Belarus recorded its hottest temperature in its history on August 6, 2010, when the mercury hit 38.7°C (101.7°F) in Gorky. The previous record was 38.0°C (100.4°F) set at Vasiliyevichy on Aug. 20, 1946. Ukraine tied its record for hottest temperature in its history when the mercury hit 41.3°C (106.3°F) at Lukhansk on August 1, 2010. Ukraine also reached 41.3°C on July 20 and 21, 2007, at Voznesensk. Cyprus recorded its hottest temperature in its history on August 1, 2010 when the mercury hit 46.6°C (115.9°F) at Lefconica. The old record for Cyprus was 44.4°C (111.9°F) at Lefkosia in August 1956. An older record of 46.6°C from July 1888 was reported from Nicosia, but is of questionable reliability. Finland recorded its hottest temperature on July 29, 2010, when the mercury hit 99°F (37.2°C) at Joensuu. The old (undisputed) record was 95°F (35°C) at Jyvaskyla on July 9, 1914. Qatar had its hottest temperature in history on July 14, 2010, when the mercury hit 50.4°C (122.7°F) at Doha Airport. Russia had its hottest temperature in history on July 11, when the mercury rose to 44.0°C (111.2°F) in Yashkul, Kalmykia Republic, in the European portion of Russia near the Kazakhstan border. The previous hottest temperature in Russia (not including the former Soviet republics) was the 43.8°C (110.8°F) reading measured at Alexander Gaj, Kalmykia Republic, on August 6, 1940. The remarkable heat in Russia this year has not been limited just to the European portion of the country--the Asian portion of Russia also recorded its hottest temperature in history this year, a 42.7°C (108.9°F) reading at Kara, in the Chita Republic on June 24. The 42.3°C (108.1°F) reading on June 25 at Belogorsk, near the Amur River border with China, also beat the old record for the Asian portion of Russia. The previous record for the Asian portion of Russia was 41.7°C (107.1°F) at Aksha on July 21, 2004. Sudan recorded its hottest temperature in its history on June 25 when the mercury rose to 49.6°C (121.3°F) at Dongola. The previous record was 49.5°C (121.1°F) set in July 1987 in Aba Hamed. Niger tied its record for hottest day in history on June 22, 2010, when the temperature reached 47.1°C (116.8°F) at Bilma. That record stood for just one day, as Bilma broke the record again on June 23, when the mercury topped out at 48.2°C (118.8°F). The previous record was 47.1°C on May 24, 1998, also at Bilma. Saudi Arabia had its hottest temperature ever on June 22, 2010, with a reading of 52.0°C (125.6°F) in Jeddah, the second largest city in Saudi Arabia. The previous record was 51.7°C (125.1°F), at Abqaiq, date unknown. The record heat was accompanied by a sandstorm, which caused eight power plants to go offline, resulting in blackouts to several Saudi cities. Chad had its hottest day in history on June 22, 2010, when the temperature reached 47.6°C (117.7°F) at Faya. The previous record was 47.4°C (117.3°F) at Faya on June 3 and June 9, 1961. Kuwait recorded its hottest temperature in history on June 15 in Abdaly, according to the Kuwait Met office. The mercury hit 52.6°C (126.7°F). Kuwait's previous all-time hottest temperature was 51.9°C (125.4°F), on July 27,2007, at Abdaly. Temperatures reached 51°C (123.8°F) in the capital of Kuwait City on June 15, 2010. Iraq had its hottest day in history on June 14, 2010, when the mercury hit 52.0°C (125.6°F) in Basra. Iraq's previous record was 51.7°C (125.1°F) set August 8, 1937, in Ash Shu'aybah. Pakistan had its hottest temperature in history on May 26, when the mercury hit an astonishing 53.5°C (128.3°F) at the town of MohenjuDaro, according to the Pakistani Meteorological Department. While this temperature reading must be reviewed by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) for authenticity, not only is the 128.3°F reading the hottest temperature ever recorded in Pakistan, it is the hottest reliably measured temperature ever recorded on the continent of Asia. Myanmar (Burma) had its hottest temperature in its recorded history on May 12, when the mercury hit 47°C (116.6°F) in Myinmu, according to the Myanmar Department of Meteorology and Hydrology. Myanmar's previous hottest temperature was 45.8°C (114.4°F) at Minbu, Magwe division on May 9, 1998. According to Chris Burt, author of the authoritative weather records book Extreme Weather, the 47°C measured this year is the hottest temperature in Southeast Asia history. Ascention Island (St. Helena, a U.K. Territory) had its hottest temperature in history on March 25, 2010, when the mercury hit 34.9°C (94.8°C) at Georgetown. The previous record was 34.0°C (93.2°F) at Georgetown in April 2003, exact day unknown. The Solomon Islands had their hottest temperature in history on February 1, 2010, when the mercury hit 36.1°C (97°F) at Lata Nendo (Ndeni). The previous record for Solomon Islands was 35.6°C (96.0°F) at Honaiara, date unknown. Colombia had its hottest temperature in history on January 24, 2010, when Puerto Salgar hit 42.3°C (108°F). The previous record was 42.0°C (107.6°F) at El Salto in March 1988 (exact day unknown). National cold records set in 2010 One nation has set a record for its coldest temperature in history in 2010. Guinea had its coldest temperature in history in January 9, 2010, when the mercury hit 1.4°C (34.5°F) at Mali-ville in the Labe region. Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog
113266. Pete Ridley at 05:39 AM on 9 August 2010
        Communicating climate science in plain English
        Please see my related comment today on the “What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?” thread.
113267. Pete Ridley at 05:38 AM on 9 August 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        What do you get when you put 99 climate scientists who support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis in a room with a sceptical climate scientist like Dr. Roy Spencer – red faces? I think that Claude Sandroff (Note 1 - American Thinker) would agree with this. In his article “Global Warming, R.I.P” he reviews Spencer’s latest book on the subject (Note 1). [quotes removed]
        Moderator Response: Unfortunately the policy of "American Thinker" with regard to language explicitly attributing bad intentions to scientists etc. does not comply with that of Skeptical Science.
113268. Doug Bostrom at 05:12 AM on 9 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        Batsvensson passes a hail mary coming up short. To claim there was a non-observed photon emitted from the radiator and that this non-observed photon in some way "existed" in the empty microwave as some non-observed electromagnetic field with some amount of non-observed energy and then was absorbed back by the emitter is therefore a statement that is utterly gibberish and that is not, and can not be, supported by any experimental evidence. Burnt-out magnetron tubes disagree with you.
113269. Pete Ridley at 05:08 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Argus, watch out with those slips, you’ll have Doug suggesting that “ .. your imagination is getting ahead of you. .. “. Doug, looking further into those Asian weather extremes it’s interesting to note that concurrently there are floods in China, Pakistan, etc. Russia had serious droughts/famine in 1891/92, 1921/22, , 1936, 1938, 1946 and 1972. Is it a coincidence that China had serious flooding in the years between 1917-22, 1936-38, 1945/46 and 1974. The 2006 paper “The variation of floods in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River and its teleconnection with El Ni˜no events” (Note 1) suggests otherwise. There is a relevant summary of “The Most Deadly 100 Natural Disasters of the 20th Century” (Note 2) which includes droughts and floods in that region. Such events as we are experiencing now are nothing new and there is no convincing evidence that they had anything to do with our use of fossil fuels. There is a 2007 Russian paper “Dynamics of severe atmospheric droughts in European Russia” (Note 3) -unfortunately payment is required) which says “Dynamics of extreme droughts in the 20th century is derived from the meteorological station data. The tendency of drought occurrence in 1991–2000, 2041–2050, and 2091–2100 is obtained from the MGO (Main Geophysical Observatory) regional climate model (RCM). A catalog of severe atmospheric droughts of different intensity is made based on the observations for 1936–2000 and modeling results for 1991–2000. The comparison of the observational and model data has shown that the MGO RCM simulates well the frequency of severe atmospheric droughts”. I couldn’t find any reference to human-made climate change in the small extract made available so wonder if anyone here has more information about that model. I was out with my grand children today in beautiful sun-shine, under a shady tree looking out over a park and suddenly remembered that I had been doing that very thing in the summer of 1980. On reflection I realised that in my experience the local climate hasn’t changed in any significant manner over the past 30 years. I recall a harsh winter in 78/79, followed by a hot spring/summer in 1979. In 2009/10 we had a harsh winter and now, in 2010 we are enjoying a hot summer and I’m looking at the same vegetation as 30 years ago. This is in spite of Hansen’s 1988 model projections and the warnings by Wally Broecker in his 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” in which he is claimed to have said "[...] .. the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide". My suspicion is that there are plenty other septuagenarians around the globe who have similar experiences. While checking out information on past weather events I came across another interesting site run by Marine Biologist Dr. Gary Sharp (Note 4) which includes a list including such events going back much further than the Disaster Centre list. It’s a fun read - enjoy. Perhaps the real culprit causing those global weather events that are being misinterpreted as human-made global climate change is El Ni˜no and not our use of fossil fuels. NOTES: 1) see http://www.adv-geosci.net/6/201/2006/adgeo-6-201-2006.pdf 2) see http://www.disastercenter.com/disaster/TOP100K.html 3) see http://www.springerlink.com/content/q272845556530204/ 4) see http://sharpgary.org/2005_Onward.html Best regards, Pete Ridley
        Moderator Response: See the argument It’s El Niño. For good measure, check out It’s Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
113270. Doug Bostrom at 04:57 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Argus, research indicates that at the end of the day you will probably continue to believe whatever makes you feel best. Your conclusion regarding the data you viewed could be viewed as confirmation of what the authors discovered, in an indirect way. I can point out the repetition of that research over a span of time covering various events that may sway public opinion and what seems to be the relative durability of the composition of various groups despite that, but that's unlikely to change whatever interpretation of the survey you may produce that comforts you. What appears to work best for you is the perception that "skepticism" is on the rise despite being shown data that does not demonstrate a trend. Not to say that everybody is not susceptible to the same phenomenon, most of us are. But other scientific evidence-- the plethora of research results on climate change-- strongly suggests some people have cemented opinions in congruence with facts, others do not. This is a key problem in making progress on this issue. Enough people have beliefs and values producing counterfactual perceptions of the world that we're having a problem dealing with this pollutant C02.
113271. actually thoughtful at 04:03 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Pete Ridley @82 "The underlying data are the direct product of the various operational forecast models run by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Weather Service, NOAA and are supplied without interpretation or correction” – and that’s just about forecasting weather, never mind climate change forecasts (don’t forget that the UK Met Office uses the same model for both)" Pete - there are those who understand that predicting climate change is very different (and actually easier) than predicting the weather, and there are those who don't accept that fact, as it is inconvenient. Shall we mark you down in the latter camp?
113272. Jim Powell at 03:36 AM on 9 August 2010
        More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
        Dear Prof. Mandia, Thanks for your comments. The deniers ask us to believe a third claim in addition to the two you cite: carbon emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations can continue to rise, but global temperatures will not continue to rise. This claim goes against all scientific knowledge; to support it they have not a shred of evidence.
113273. JMurphy at 01:01 AM on 9 August 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        Poptech, instead of wasting everyone's time on here, why don't you ask the authors themselves. Perhaps they can help you out with your problems. Or, going by your past behaviour, you can tell them where they are wrong and what they really meant. I would suggest, though, that you are more civil and less self-regarding when/if you do contact them. Otherwise, they may ignore you or try to humour you - just as happens on every website you spam.
113274. Mal Adapted at 00:41 AM on 9 August 2010
        Remember, we’re only human
        

        We live in a world were one prevalent idea seems to be that the very existence of human beings is a problem.

        How deep is your ecology?
113275. Argus at 00:23 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        'and are' should read 'are'. Sorry.
113276. Argus at 00:22 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        doug_bostrom at 03:56 AM on 8 August, 2010 Doug, I fail to see how my belief that alarmist reports and are counter-productive, can identify me as belonging to ''a small minority of persons that […] appears to show little if any trend''. I did not know that opinion surveys were undertaken that examine common folk's views on what types of propaganda are best suited for informing the public about climate matters. If this is what you meant? If you were instead referring to my view that the 'public is becoming more skeptic', and your claim is that this view places me in a group of some kind, I am equally surprised that such surveys are conducted. The report about the Six Americas, does little too enlighten me here. If I read it correctly, the diagram on page 9 says that the two groups with the 'highest belief in global warming' have both diminished by 5 percent units in 1 ½ years. They seem to have migrated to 'cautious' or even to 'dismissive'. Maybe this was because they were fed up with scare stories?
113277. cannaman at 00:15 AM on 9 August 2010
        Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
        Is anyone aware of any independant analysis of the accuracy (or more likely otherwise) of the Watts App? At the moment the massed hoards (duo) of watts staffers seem intent on guiding the debate on the Guardian piece towards a sales drive marketing opportunity for their app. It would be nice to see a quality debunking on a 10 point basis to their Top 10 points. It just gets to be very tedious watching them lead some of the more sober Guardian posters on a not so merry dance?
113278. Rob Painting at 00:08 AM on 9 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        What would be useful on discussion of the climate models, would be an analysis of the many "predictions" the models actually got right. As well as never ending rhetoric about uncertainty (yes, we know!), the skeptics tend to focus mainly on global temperature, however the models are more sophisticated than that. They have correctly predicted features such as stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, global sea ice asymmetry, intensification of the hydrological cycle, that the Arctic would warm faster in winter than summer and that (counter intuitively) the Arctic sea ice extent would exhibit greater reductions in summer than winter. I do wonder what "predictions" will manifest themselves in the future?. Maybe this one?
113279. ProfMandia at 00:02 AM on 9 August 2010
        More evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at
        Dr. Powell, My favorite part is where you summarize observed warming by stating if increases in CO2 are not causing modern day global warming then two things must be true: 1) Something unknown is suppressing the well-understood greenhouse effect (and doing so during massive increases in GHGs). 2) Something unknown is causing the warming that mirrors the GHE. So we can accept what we know to be true (AGW) or we accept two unknowns. A pretty simple and straightforward defense of the science. Thank you.
113280. JMurphy at 23:13 PM on 8 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Poptech wrote : "JMurphy, Pielke Jr. explicitly stated that if the list was only about papers that reject AGW than his do not belong, this is not the case as I explained on his blog. His papers support skepticism of the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW and thus warrant inclusion, the same with Brooks." Yes, of course. Despite what those two had to say about the inclusion of their work on your little list ("There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category" & "I have no idea how it could be construed as saying anything at all about man-made global warming"), you have "explained" to Pielke on his blog, and "the same with Brooks", and therefore you think you know best. Hmm, let me do a search to find where the two of them state "Ah yes, Professor Poptech, you are right and we were wrong. Forgive us. Our papers are against AGW (alarmist or not) after all and we thank you for enlightening us. May we pass on all our pre-publication papers to you, so you can determine how anti-AGW (alarmist or not) they are ? Thank you in advance, if you can spare the time." No, nothing's coming back. Can you provide those links to them accepting your interpretation ? Thanks in advance - if you can spare the time.
113281. JMurphy at 23:01 PM on 8 August 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        Poptech wrote : "The PNAS paper has been completely discredited...", ...by Poptech ! Boy, you do rate yourself, don't you ? Anyway, since you have now produced an Energy & Environment type paper (i.e. not peer-reviewed in a real journal - perhaps you could send your work to them, to be published ? I reckon you stand a good chance), it will no doubt now be included in your little list of 'Papers that Poptech reckons are sceptical of AGW (alarmist or not), despite what the original authors may think', and at least this time you will be able to state correctly that you know exactly what the writer is trying to say !
113282. batsvensson at 22:48 PM on 8 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        While I been reading in this tread I don’t like the attitude some people here has toward RSVP understanding of physics. Some people here think they know what they are talking about when they make statement about things they – or anyone else for that matter - knows nothing about, namely about the unobservable universe. Loosely put, according to the quantum mechanical description of the world there exists no photons unless there is an "observer" to observe the photons (photons are interpretation of events in certain experiments), nor does it exists any electromagnetic waves (which is interpretations of event in certain other experiments). What exists according to the theory of quantum mechanic is observable events and non-observable events. The observable events has for every event (i.e. an observation in an experiment) connected a abstract space filled with a flux of probability for the observable event to occur. Every single point in this abstract space, at any instance of time, has a well defined probability value for this event. However this is not the same thing as there actually would exist an equal thing such as a photon (or a wave or whatever else event that may be generated) somewhere in the real space. What exist is observed events and the non-observable. What the non-observable is we don’t known, can not know. However we know what it is not – it is not a photon nor a electromagnetic wave! Photons does not exist, photons is only interpretations of experimental result (events) setup in certain ways to generate these events labled "photons", or as RSVP put so colorfull put it, there exist no orphan photons, which he poetically described as there would be no starlight in the universe if the universe only contained one single star – that is if there is no observer then there exists nothing to observe (this is basically the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum mechanical model). The quantum mechanical description of the universe does not make any claims about where a "photon" has been, what is has done, where it is going, or even how it came to be in the place where it emerge (read: heat transfer!!!) Any question of such nature are namely forbidden to ask in the quantum mechanical universe because these are question about the non-observable things in the universe. To make statements about truth as to what happens with non-observable things are meaningless! To claim there was a non-observed photon emitted from the radiator and that this non-observed photon in some way "existed" in the empty microwave as some non-observed electromagnetic field with some amount of non-observed energy and then was absorbed back by the emitter is therefore a statement that is utterly gibberish and that is not, and can not be, supported by any experimental evidence. In the same way the claim that the emitter never emitted an electromagnetic field and just was heated up by the current is also not supported by any experimental evidence. Both description are just that – descriptions. Which one is true we don’t know. The only thing we can know (observe) for certain is the heated up emitter – but how it was heated up we don’t know. Not both suggestion can be true, but both need not to be false, however it is not possible to determined which, if any, is actual true because they are both statement about the non-observed. The only way to know if a photons exist inside the microwave is to prepare it with an observer, something like - right! - water. Then and only then any heat transfer can be detected from the emitter – but to claim that heat actually is transferred around inside the macro wave when no observer is present (i.e. no experiment to detect that heat transfer was set up) has no support in experimental physics whatsoever. Since we can not determine which description is true, then both are equal good to use. However Occam’s razor tells us to use the most simple explanation. The description RSVP suggest is the most simplified, and therefore preferred one as it does not involve radiation and re-absorption of energy. I therefore give my fully support to RSVP standpoint that no energy is being radiated in an empty microwave. Finally, judging by the comments about RSVP’s grasp of physics, the Dunning-Kreuger effect seams to have a muhc more wider spread than many people her is willing to acknowledge.
113283. JMurphy at 22:39 PM on 8 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Pete Ridley wrote : "Some people stick to their beliefs no matter what the evidence." Having read your last few comments here, and your lack of detail (e.g. "scientific hypotheses that are based upon dubious statistical manipulations, unsound assumptions and estimates used as a poor substitutes for a proper understanding about global climate processes and drivers" - are you able to provide more detail and examples), I can only agree with you. And you are also typical of the so-called skeptics in that you prefer one expert above all the others. Why is that ? Does von Storch give you exactly what you want, whereas everyone else doesn't ? And you are typical in that you put words into others' mouths, e.g. "you don’t wish to recognise that significant uncertainty exists about global climate processes and drivers" (to Chris). Can you point out where ?
113284. LewisC at 22:39 PM on 8 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        batsvensson - you deny that this is a science of public interest, and describe the Swedish acidification impacts and exemplary remediation efforts, but have not explained how ending GHG emissions would be remotely sufficient for controlling the now accelerating interactive positive feedbacks. With society having missed the chance in the '70s to end global warming by ending GHG outputs, are you now advocating a similar 30-yr delay to waste the final opportunity to avoid catastrophic climate destabilisation by the additional means of carbon recovery and temporary albido enhancement ? Regards, Lewis
113285. chris1204 at 21:35 PM on 8 August 2010
        Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
        PS: I must confess when I saw the WUWT post that I didn't read it in detail and so I missed the suggestion that you'd turned to the Guardian for help. So in this case, the mountain in fact came to Mohammed (or would Matthew 21: 21 be the more appropriate quote?) Either way, an outbreak of decency is always a good result.
113286. chris1204 at 21:08 PM on 8 August 2010
        Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
        I guess you'd have to ask HumanityRules but the thought did cross my mind ;-)
113287. chris1204 at 20:39 PM on 8 August 2010
        Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
        Well, John, you've made it into the rough and tumble of WUWT via your Guardian Post (if you haven't featured there already). Congrats for the Guardian - you might have mixed feelings about the former but to be fair, Anthony calls you 'a generally reasonable Aussie.' He feels his apps are doing better than your apps (now, he would say that, wouldn't he) and thanks you for the boost you're giving him. He does defend you against one of his more feral posters saying: REPLY: I don’t think he’s a ‘dimwit’ by any means, and it’s really not a label you should be using. He’s just not very good at understanding mass media and communications, like most scientists. – Anthony It's a bit of backhanded compliment - your (non-carbon) footprint's getting bigger and your site's become a serious contender in the blogosphere. As it very deservedly should be (and has been for some time).
        Response: Interesting comments thread on WUWT (for the record, the Guardian asked me to write the article, I didn't approach them) and decent of Anthony Watts to defend me. I also think one of the comments there by an enigmatic "HR" might be our own HumanityRules. If I ever do a testimonials page on Skeptical Science, I'll be sure to include:
        
        "I don't think he's a dimwit"
        Anthony Watts
113288. batsvensson at 19:25 PM on 8 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        Poptech, it is quite inappropriate to ask non-experts in art how quality is defined in art. Is there any art experts here? I dont know, but if one decided to answer I am pretty sure that expert would be able to give you a list of requirements. I would most likely not understand those requirements or how to evaluate them - would you? Every specialist is train in their own field of expertise and know how to evaluate quality objectively in their own field. I know how to evaluate quality in my own filed of expertise, and I can assure you measuring quality is not a matter of subjective opinions but a quantitative process everyone can agree on. We may think experts in other fields are making subjective measurement of quality but that is only because we do not understand on what technical ground they made their evaluation.
113289. RSVP at 19:14 PM on 8 August 2010
        Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
        doug_bostrom 204 In order to teach an old dog new tricks, they need to be worth learning. Back in this thread, the significance of waste heat was played down by stating numerous times that non-GHGs transfer energy to GHG in the mixture, and that GHG in turn radiate this energy (up and down). In this way, even though non-GHG have very low emissivity, they cool via radiation through GHGs. AGW, on the other hand, attributes global warming to this same process, but in reverse. It is very hard for me (old dog) to see how this waste heat is therefore released if the net flow is supposedly in the opposite direction. How can GHG have a net warming and cooling effect simultaneously? This makes no sense. As a compromise and way to answer this question, I proposed the idea of vector cancellation in favor of overall heating due to AGW, assuming the GHG vector was much larger than the waste heat vector. This leads to the weird idea that the more waste heat, the less effect GHG have in heating. But for saying this, a lot of chaff was raised.
113290. Pete Ridley at 18:34 PM on 8 August 2010
        Models are unreliable
        Mats (Frick), thanks for advising about "A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming". I responded on 31st July and 1st August but my comment was removed so I’ve modified it a little and hope it is now acceptable to the moderator. I note that Professor Edwards is not a scientists involved in any of the numerous disciplines contributing to improving our poor understanding of global climate processes and drivers, so I wonder what has convinced him that “I think climate change is real, and I think it is the biggest threat the world faces now and will face for generations to come. ... Climate change is not a matter of opinion, belief, or ideology. This book is about how we came to know what we know about climate — how we make climate knowledge” (Intro xiv). It’s that “climate change is .. the biggest threat the world faces .. “ bit that I disagree with. He makes no mention of “uncertainty” anywhere in that introduction, which makes me suspicious about the extent of his understanding of those processes and drivers and of his environmental activism. I will be getting a copy but as you’ve read most of the book can you tell me if he touches on any of that or the subject of validation. The manner in which Edwards presents what Professor Freeman Dyson said about the reliance on models gives a somewhat different impression to how I interpret them. I’m think that Dyson was referring specifically to computer models rather than models in general. Chapter 13 is the one that I’m most interested in reading – any comments on that, taking into consideration my previous comment here? I’ll have a more careful read after my holiday and get back to you. Best regards, Pete Ridley.
113291. John Brookes at 18:29 PM on 8 August 2010
        Talkin bout the Skeptical Science phone apps
        Just read the Guardian article. Very nice. You highlight the most obvious contrarian tactic - focus on one thing, and draw conclusions that don't follow.
113292. batsvensson at 18:23 PM on 8 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        doug_bostrom, It goes beyond my understanding why computer time is wasted on ideas like this. This is no science of public interest, at its best mockery with the subject at worst disconnected from reality.
113293. Pete Ridley at 18:18 PM on 8 August 2010
        Why I care about climate change
        Jmurphy, ref. comment #115 (and Chris, comment 116), regarding vonStorch, I won’t repeat here what I’ve already said on the “Confidence in climate forecasts” thread so if you wish to pursue that one I look forward to further discussion on that thread. On the mater of AGW v The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis, I thought that I’d already adequately explained that but just for you I’ll repeat what I think I said. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is in my opinion misleading. I believe that most sceptics accept that humans cause some warming of the globe but do not see convincing evidence that the effect is significant as far as changing global climates are concerned. I didn’t realise that I needed your approval of particular terminology before using it, mistakenly thinking that the blog administrator was the person who had to be satisfied about comment contents. Best regards, Pete Ridley
113294. Doug Bostrom at 18:04 PM on 8 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Pete, what did I say? I think your imagination is getting ahead of you. :-)
113295. Doug Bostrom at 18:01 PM on 8 August 2010
        Visually depicting the disconnect between climate scientists, media and the public
        RealClimate have censored my comments... I have no interest in improving their worthless paper because you can't, it is flawed by design. If I squint at that really hard, I get some clue as to what the problem may be with you having your remarks appear at RealClimate. They're pretty slack but everybody has limits.
113296. Pete Ridley at 17:58 PM on 8 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        My previous comment lost a little at the end so I repost the last bit. I respectfully suggest that you re-read what I quoted but try doing so a little more slowly and you may see my point about uncertainty more clearly. Of course there is a possibility that you don’t wish to recognise that significant uncertainty exists about global climate processes and drivers. Some people stick to their beliefs no matter what the evidence.
113297. kdkd at 17:57 PM on 8 August 2010
        What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
        poptech #156 This really is tiresome. As the methodology is systematic it is quite reproducible, although I agree that (as with much social research) they may not have explained every part of the data collection process -a problem relating to space constraints in journals . Anyway, another fixed that for you: "I think I have irrefutably demonstrated ..." Again, it seems that the level of discussion, and your 'legend in his own mind' approach suggests that its really not worth engaging you in discussion.
113298. Pete Ridley at 17:55 PM on 8 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        Chris, if you don’t find my comment interesting then you don’t have to read them, do you? I wholeheartedly agree with you that “evidence is always preferable to opinion”. If there was convincing evidence I don’t see why von Storch would have considered it necessary to say “I have to admit that I may be wrong with that assessment”. I respectfully suggest that you re-read what I quoted but try doing so a little more slowly and you may see my point about uncertainty more cl
113299. Pete Ridley at 17:55 PM on 8 August 2010
        Confidence in climate forecasts
        In my comment #74 I inadvertently said in the penultimate paragraph “Gelman then goes on to say .. ”. This should have been “Roberts then ….”. Sorry if I misled anyone. Doug, ref. comment #76, thanks for that link to a very interesting poll of Americans. The most important point about that poll, as for any, is the original questions. I did consider responding to those questions in the way that I think I would have if I’d been included and leave it to you to place me in the appropriate category but this is not the forum. My guess is that I’d be placed in the “concerned” category. If you want to follow this up then let me know via this one and I’ll start a thread on my Global Political Shenanigans blog. I’m puzzled as to why you, despite your acknowledged lack of expertise in the subject (comment #68), “ .. should be equally amenable to the notion that today's weather in Russia is confirmation of climate change .. .”. I would expect you to be aware that abnormal weather events occurring in parts of the world, such as hot spells in central Russia give no indication of global climate change (the topic of this blog I believe). After all, the Russians were experiencing similar conditions “ .. in 1919, 1920, 1936, 1938 and 1972 .. ” (Note 1) so they’ve seen it all before – that’s weather for you. If you have a particular interest in global weather conditions then you may be interested in looking at the Cola Weather and Climate Data site (Note 2). “As you can see, the temperature outlook for the next two weeks for the areas just north and east of the Black Sea is bad to say the least” (Note 3) . but I do like the official disclaimer. “COLA and IGES make no guarantees about and bear no responsibility or liability concerning the accuracy or timeliness of the images being published on these web pages. .. The underlying data are the direct product of the various operational forecast models run by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, National Weather Service, NOAA and are supplied without interpretation or correction” – and that’s just about forecasting weather, never mind climate change forecasts (don’t forget that the UK Met Office uses the same model for both). We can all expect the cost of a loaf of bread to rocket as a consequence of this weather event. Of course, Yahoo Green has a different take on this (Note 4). Peter (Hogarth) “envisaging possible future climate” is significantly different to predicting them. NOTES: 1) see http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/73341/ 2) see http://wxmaps.org/ 3) see http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/20637/cme-russian-heatwave-may-spark-wheat-crisis 4) see http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100802/wl_time/08599200808100 Best regards, Pete Ridley
113300. batsvensson at 17:24 PM on 8 August 2010
        Three new studies illustrate significant risks and complications with geoengineering climate
        LewisC, I come from a country that is known to have the cleanest fresh lakes, soil and air in Europe. Despite this forests was dieing and lakes life was wiped out due to acid rains. Since the 70ties chalk has been dumped in lakes and forest has been spray from the air with chalk powder to combat acid rains and prevent forest and lakes from dying. All this in the cleanest country of Europe – imagine the rest... This and this is what happen. Historical architecture was literally falling apart in front of our very eyes due to acid air pollutions. However, the air in Europe has now been cleaned up to such extent that cupper plated roofs now turn black instead of green, I think I can live with out the greenish cupper plated roofs. We do not need to know more about acid rains than the already known effects to dismiss such an idea as futile.

Prev  2258  2259  2260  2261  2262  2263  2264  2265  2266  2267  2268  2269  2270  2271  2272  2273  Next