Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 Next
Comments 113501 to 113550:
-
Berényi Péter at 04:35 AM on 20 August 2010The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
#38 KR at 01:10 AM on 20 August, 2010 the water temperature should be the determining factor in loss rate Yes, of course. But as you can see, SST (Sea Surface Temperature) has been decreasing steadily in the Arctic ocean during the entire holocene and now it is 2-3°C colder than it was eight thousand years ago. Still, the Greenland ice sheet has not collapsed, not even during the four millennia between 6000 B.C. and 2000 B.C. It will not collapse now either. A decade is still weather, not climate, SST is well below its Holocene Optimum value and melt season temperatures in the high arctic are decreasing sharply.
One of the sites is at the eastern edge of the Greenland sea, south of Svalbard, the other one is in the Norwegian sea.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 6, 1280,
doi:10.1029/2002GL016570, 2003
Arctic/North Atlantic Oscillation signature in Holocene sea surface temperature trends as obtained from alkenone data
N. Rimbu, G. Lohmann, J.-H. Kim, H. W. Arz, and R. Schneider
Department of Geosciences, Bremen University, Bremen, Germany
Received 6 November 2002; revised 23 December 2002; accepted 10 January 2003; published 19 March 2003.
-
MattJ at 04:13 AM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
"proponent of climate change"? Really? Since when is Al Gore FOR climate change? -
Paul Magnus at 04:06 AM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
It is time for this film to be re-released updated and/or another one which incorporates the flood/acidification of our seas and plankton die-off. Also some of the miss-information tactics of the big oil etc. Who cares if it is taken to court. This actually helps to spread the word. -
JMurphy at 04:05 AM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
factfinder, I suggest you try to find some facts and actually read what is written by others, before commenting. Firstly, James Wight does not appear to be holding Al Gore up as any sort of scientific expert or authority - but, even as a politician, he probably knows more than most (although that may not be saying much), especially most US politicians. Actually, probably more than most UK politicians (and Australian, etc.) too. That doesn't mean he is any sort of expert, though, so calm down and stop obsessing about him. Secondly, I thought so-called skeptics reckon that Al Gore (as well as being fat, apparently) is already a billionaire, having an untold number of mansions (especially below sea level, etc.) burning an untold amount of carbon by having all the lights on every hour of every day. Thirdly, do you actually have any figures to show that potential 'doubling of electricity' and 'non-benefit to the environment' ? Do you need any evidence, in order to believe that ? Fourthly, what do you mean by 'making a change in climate' and what do you think is important about 'different climates' ? As for evidence, see It's NOT the sun, It's NOT cosmic rays, It's NOT Solar Cycle length and here, It's NOT a natural cycle, There IS empirical evidence for it being CO2, AGW IS happening and here, It IS us, and here. Once you have read all that, come back and present your arguments against any of it. -
dsleaton at 04:03 AM on 20 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Factfinder: and yet relatively rapid global warming has occurred. If we don't know what's causing it (obviously you can't point to alternative science-based explanations that have better or the same level of confidence of climatologists' explanations), then we don't really know if it's going to get better or worse 10-20 years from now. Upon what basis, then, do you choose to act? If the future is a totally unknown quantity to you, how do you decide what to do next? Or is it that you have access to the 100% Truth? Certainly no scientist will make such a claim. What is the purpose of skepticism? To learn or to protect? Btw, and I see this quite a bit from those who aren't scientists, a "hypothesis" is a testable statement. The greenhouse effect is a "theory" that has generated thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of testable (and tested and published) hypotheses. A "theory" is an understanding of how something works, given all of the evidence generated by the testing of hypotheses. A "law" is a theory that has a confidence level such that scientists assume it to be the truth (in other words, of thousands of tests of its hypothesis, it's never been found to be false. That doesn't mean that people aren't willing to keep testing it, though). Finally, because there is so much and such varied evidence (even of the types you might call circumstantial) for rising CO2 levels being the basis of increasing global temperature, I suggest you look around this site, choose one of your arguments against AGW, and test it against the arguments of others. That's a much better way of actually changing someone's mind (or the minds of many) than to make a shotgun blast of unsupported statements and questions that have very complex answers (such as your "many different climates" question). -
MattJ at 04:02 AM on 20 August 20101934: the 47th hottest year on record
Huh? If we are trying to refute the claim that "1934 is the hottest year on record", why do we need anything past the first sentence of this article? For with that one sentence, the thesis is already defeated. Or is it this sentence that is unnecessary, and another single sentence that must be kept? I ask this because the article seems to be making a hard tack, first talking about hottest year in the US, then abruptly switching to hottest globally. But this really is unnecessary. It would be much easier for the reader to follow, if the article made a more logical progression, such as: 1) remind the reader that it is global average that we need, not just US data 2) go straight for that global data, showing that 1934 was only 47th, not first. Done. There. Wasn't that a lot simpler? There is no point in continuing to distract the reader with our opponents' red herring: the hottest year in the US is completely irrelevant. Also, the definition of cherry picking is not quite right, nor is it phrased decisively enough to persuade the reader that cherry picking is to be avoided. I suggest changing the wording to address both problems as follows: "However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that appears to support a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data, the data forming a whole picture that does not support the claim." -
owl905 at 03:46 AM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
thingadonta, "No it isnt, the statements are the same." Not even close. It's a misquote of the statement both literally and in emphasis. You're own attempt to 'correct' the quote highlights your skew:- "however there is no debate that human activities are actually affecting climate in the first place" Doran's quote makes it clear that skeptics first line of attack is on the "authenticity of global warming". If you're still confused, reference your '800 list' for articles about 'bad measurements' and the 'warming is over'. Your reference to the Biglist is a reflection of the spin required to firm up the spin. The list (originally "750 Papers", was later modified with suffix "Alarm") has noticeable refuted sources (I&E) suspect authors (Idso, McIntyre, Michaels, etc, and padded with papers that actually do not dispute AGW but debate sensitivities and projections. Their inclusion in the padding is tied at the hip to the "Alarm" in the headline. Your statement misrepresents the nature of the list. An easy one to spot is Pielke Jr.'s inclusion, discussed on Pielke Jr's blog last November. He flat out stated he supported the AGW foundation. The 800 list was revived as a counter-volley at the PNAS article which generated the 97% consensus. 800-Alarm now, 750-Alarm then, and 750 originally ... it has traction in the skeptic blogoshpere. -
RSVP at 03:13 AM on 20 August 2010Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
doug_bostrom 227 I respect you taking the time to inspect the graph closely, but as per your reply, it does plot against temperature. Something physical is responding to temperature at that rate. Obviously, for the other curves, if energy is being extracted through a circuit, you arent going to see these excursions. KR Even experts who believe in AGW may use inproper analogies and mental models, and you can be sure that most people (out there) accept the theory even if they cant explain it well themselves. They get the applause for parroting what they have been told, but they dont even really understand the thing themselves. I am afraid the human mind has no other way to deal with "the unseen" sides of science without resorting in some degree to familiar household concepts. I agree that analogies always fall short of what they are actually trying to describe, with no exception in this context. What I find hypocritical among experts is the eloboration of a mathematical model that denies having its basis on some initial assumptions (which is ultimately someone's clumsy mental model). I dont have a problem with the process, especially if it leads to predictable results. This is does not mean however it is the final truth and cannot be subjected to scrutiny. Plus, it is generally uncommon that the first idea is the best idea. People assumed apparently that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It took many years until someone proved that this is not the case. ETC. -
Alexandre at 02:48 AM on 20 August 20101934: the 47th hottest year on record
Please disregard my previous post. Of course, you meant the US and not the world in that sentence (gosh, my posts are very messy lately). So, according to which series is 2007 the world´s hottest year? (references on my messy post above) -
Alexandre at 02:36 AM on 20 August 20101934: the 47th hottest year on record
"ranking third behind 2006 and 1998" According to which series? I think the NASA GISS series has the 2005 and 2009 as the hottest years. (eyeballing the graph) NCDC shows 2005 and 1998 as the top two. Apart from this minor comment, it´s great to see the active "community of communicators" that´s been formed here. -
RSVP at 02:32 AM on 20 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
CBDunkerson 6 Your metaphor is a good one (and humorous), except I am afraid there is actually no one in the driver seat, which is what I meant by "hubris" (philosophically speaking). Marcus 7,8 Normally there are two or more sides to a story, and I have been open to discussing the possibilities, but it sounds like (for you) there is only one side, and everyone has to believe it. It is curious therefore that you say I belong to a cult. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:53 AM on 20 August 2010CO2 was higher in the past
I think the argument about CO2 levels in the deep past is a bit of a red herring. Yes, CO2 levels were FAR higher in the Ordovician but, correct me if I'm wrong, there were also no land based life forms. Not even land based plant life. Doesn't that make it a little pointless what the CO2 levels were 500 mya? -
batsvensson at 01:50 AM on 20 August 2010Long Term Certainty
"I am intrigued by the various degrees of alarmism raised to counter my suggestion that people would be ill-advised to drive into a brick wall." This kind of argument has been in use, in many version, for thousand of years in our culture and the only reason people submitted to it is because there has been no relasitic alternative until around mid 19'th century. When this argument comes around in a new modern envelope it should not be surprised it will face high resistance in those cultures. -
NickD at 01:48 AM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
Here is a pretty good look at Poptech's list of papers. Apparently it keeps growing even as it is being dismantled! -
batsvensson at 01:37 AM on 20 August 2010Long Term Certainty
Can it be proven we can not adapt? -
rocco at 01:33 AM on 20 August 2010Can't We At Least Agree That There Is No Consensus?
I think Skeptical Science should address the "xxx" papers thing somehow. Is there a comprehensive rebuttal somewhere that could be used? Or perhaps one should be created here? (we could do it as a collaborative effort). -
The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Sorry, the link to the graph in my previous post is to Why is Greenland's ice loss accelerating?. My apologies for not noting it there. -
Berényi Péter at 01:14 AM on 20 August 2010Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
#10 kdkd at 20:08 PM on 19 August, 2010 despite some suggestion that both have increased since the early 1970s Of course they did. However, if one is trying to do valid climate science, the first question to ask is why hurricane intensity has dropped dramatically between 1959 and 1972? Until we have an answer to that question, there is no point in making fancy theories about the partial recovery after 1990 which still have not reached the levels once seen during the 1940s. Not even those in the 1880s when temperature is supposed to be way lower than today. -
adelady at 01:14 AM on 20 August 20101934: the 47th hottest year on record
It might be worth making the point, somehow, somewhere, that the 10 coldest years on the global record all occurred before 1920. (As far as I could see on the GISS graph.) It's not just how hot these recent years may or may not be, it's how far they are out of contention for inclusion in a list of 10 or 20 or 50 cold years. This might be more suited to one of the other topics though. -
The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Berényi - Thank you, very interesting data on historic Greenland air temperatures and snowfalls. Have you found related data showing historic water temperatures over that period? Given that the majority of Greenland's ice loss (balancing or recently overbalancing snow/ice gain) comes from peripheral melt/ run-off, calving events (both water temp driven), and glacier speed (moderated by back-pressure from the periphery as well as local melt greasing the glacial underbelly), the water temperature should be the determining factor in loss rate. Sublimation is trivial by comparison.
Given the currently increasing ocean heat content, run-off rates are a serious issue.
-
batsvensson at 01:07 AM on 20 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
JMurphy, The cause of malaria being spread is not mosquitoes or warming but ignorance. -
Berényi Péter at 00:54 AM on 20 August 2010The Past and Future of the Greenland Ice Sheet
#11 chris at 02:25 AM on 1 August, 2010 it’s worth being a little more considered about the data on the progression of Greenland temperatures during the 20th century You are right. Fortunately we have some data on past temperatures over Greenland. If you visit the NOAA Paleoclimatology page, you may find supporting data there for Kobashi et al. 2010 GISP2 1000-Year Ar-N2 Isotope Temperature Reconstruction. There is also a nice paper on more than two centuries of instrumental temperature record in Greenland, directly from CRU. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, D11105 doi:10.1029/2005JD006810, 2006 Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century B. M. Vinther, K. K. Andersen, P. D. Jones, K. R. Briffa, and J. Cappelen Received 24 October 2005; revised 11 January 2006; accepted 28 February 2006; published 6 June 2006. They also have supporting data published, as all such studies should. The ice core reconstruction is from Greenland summit and covers the years from 1000 AD. to 1993 AD., while Vinther at al. have a full reconstruction of monthly temperatures along the south and west coast of Greenland (Ilulissat, Nuuk & Qaqortoq) from 1852 to 2005 based on instrumental record. I have converted both datasets to temperature anomalies and have calculated a 11 year running mean for the latter one to match the lower resolution of ice core data. Here it is:
The match between the ice core proxy and the instrumental record is reasonably good for the overlapping period. Part of the difference may be due to the distance between the two sites (up to 1000 km).
We can see temperatures over Greenland in the 1930s were a bit higher than today. They were even higher around 1140.
If we have a broader look, to the entire holocene, we can see temperatures were up to 3°C warmer than today several times, with somewhat less snow accumulation.
Still, the Greenland ice sheet has not collapsed and the sea never flooded London.
-
Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
A meta-comment on analogies, and common logical errors related to them: An analogy is a wonderful way to explain aspects of complex systems. If you can map interrelationships of the complex system into something the listener is more familiar with, the analogy can show the listener something about how the complex system works. This is a "Forward Mapping" (my term) of some aspect(s) of the complex system into a simpler or more familiar system. Note that this is NOT a 1 to 1 mapping; some portions of the complex system are inevitably not mapped to the analogy system, and the simple analogy system will have aspects that don't match the complex one. A particular logical error that often seems to come up on the climate change topic is "Bad Analogy" - arguing from some aspect of the explanatory analogy system that there are issues with the complex system it's drawn from. This is a "Backward Mapping". It's easy to do, tempting, even, but it is wrong. For example: "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is." As another example, I recently made an analogy of total energy/temperature and energy inputs, outputs, in the Earth system to a water tank, with input and output pipes. I thought that it might be a useful way to explain some aspects of the total energy budget. Arguing back from the water tank to the Earth, however, is invalid - water evaporates and freezes, joules do not. Leaves blocking a pipe might rot, CO2 instead gets absorbed by weathering/ocean. A backwards mapping from analogy might, in some instances, provide a starting point to examine the complex system. But it has zero value in terms of validating or invalidating a hypothesis - that has to be done in the arena of the complex system, not the analogy. The analogous system simply isn't the complex system; the fact that some of it is "like" the complex system just doesn't support critiquing the complex system based on the analogy. To claim problems in a complex system from an analogy is simply a "Bad Analogy". -
Argus at 22:53 PM on 19 August 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
JMurphy, doug_bostrom, and michael sweet (101, 102, 103): Thank you for your responses! I have duly noted that 2010 is an exceptional year when it comes to heat records. 17 national records certainly sends a powerful message of how warm this year has been so far all over the earth, even after taking into account that the nations listed are very different in size (one has only 1/20000th of the area of one other, guess which ones!). I acknowledge the significance of these records as such (and also of the many 'almost-records'). I merely in my comments objected to the way of presenting singular records in various countries, in the form of a carefully calculated, exact portion of the earth's surface. That way of adding areas is misleading. Even if as much as a third or half of Russia's area has experienced heat records, only those areas should be added--not the whole of Russia. -- BUT I did also point out the adverse effect of counting whole nations: If any U.S. states, or parts of states, (or provinces of Sweden, cantons of Switzerland, etc.) have experienced heat records, the corresponding areas are not counted at all, because there is no new national record. If my criticism of the presentation method, summarized above, was interpreted as being "suggestive of a wish or need to ignore a larger message" (doug_bostrom), it is completely in the reader's mind. It was never my intention to wish anything of the sort. Thanks to JMurphy for pointing out the NOAA report for July! "You are attempting to cast doubt on how hot it has been this summer by quibbling over a statistic. ... I see no reasonable room for doubt.", writes michael sweet. Excuse me, but where exactly did I attempt to cast doubt? I certainly do not doubt that 2010 is an unusually warm year. I just questioned the way data were presented, and advocated a method of observing and adding smaller area units than nations. Sometimes AGW enthusiasts seem very touchy… -
James Wight at 22:44 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
I think the level of abuse routinely directed at Al Gore is extremely unfair. Considering the scientific literacy of politicians in general, particularly in the US, I’m actually pretty impressed with how much Gore got right. I mean, imagine putting certain other US politicians up on a platform for an hour and a half and asking them to talk about science – I don’t think the result would be pretty. -
huntjanin at 22:43 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Does anyone know what Mr. Gore is doing these days re climate change? -
Lassesson at 22:09 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
I see that I’m not the first to answer RSVP, but here it comes anyway. One "insurmountable" part is that we not only "affected climate" (past tense), as you put it. We are still affecting it (present tense) and we will keep on affecting it (future tense). Even if we stop emitting extra CO2 and other GHG's today, we will still see approximately 0.6°C warming during the next few decades, due to climate time lag. Another “insurmountable” part is to stop almost 7 billion people from using cheap fossil fuels, where the really hard part is to stop the industrialized part of the world from using fossil fuels. I am sure that it is possible to move over to clean and renewable energy, without losing quality of life. There will be a few people who will lose quality of life since they have invested in the fossil fuel business, but there will also be others who will increase their quality of life from the new jobs that will be created around renewable energy. It will, however, take time and effort to do so. And since we might not have too much time on our hands (that’s the “alarm”), I think we better put in a whole lot of effort. But that is just how I believe the future will be like. -
Lou Grinzo at 22:02 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
RSVP, fixing our climate mess is so insanely difficult thanks to several factors: 1. The political and economic power of fossil fuel companies and those aligned with them. 2. The very long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere. 3. The fact that we're just now, finally, starting to talk seriously about undoing over two centuries of man made CO2 emissions. "Fixing" the climate mess is conceptually very simple, but in practical terms it's a nightmare of politics, economics, and the need to keep supplying energy (primarily electricity and transportation) in decarbonized forms. -
TOP at 21:39 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
-
Marcus at 21:36 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Also RSVP, aren't you being a tad hypocritical in throwing around accusations of *hubris*? After all, you're the one who keeps telling us that it is the relatively infinitesimal levels of waste heat-from industrial activity-which is causing global warming (in spite of the total lack of correlation between increasing industrial activity & warming-or any correlation between where industrial activity is occurring & where the most rapid warming is happening). Yet you utterly reject the more likely possibility that it is the far more substantial amounts of GHG's released by industrial activity that are the cause. -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:22 PM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
"Where on Earth does one find the heaviest concentration of mosquitoes? A tropical jungle? A hot festering swamp? Wrong. Experts say it's the Arctic tundra" www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-mosquito.htm "Both features would clearly have survival value for P. vivax in a temperate climate, enabling it to cope with long winters and episodes of successive cold summers." http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm -
CBDunkerson at 21:13 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
RSVP, I believe that the 'alarm' quite obviously comes from the fact that while it IS possible for us to fix the problem... we AREN'T. On account of certain people who want to insist there is no problem. When you're in a car heading towards a cliff it is quite easy to step on the brakes. When the guy driving is insisting that there is no cliff... yes that could cause a bit of alarm. -
DarkSkywise at 20:47 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
RSVP #5: And now I have this very weird image in my head of everybody from all over the world going to Al's House on a yearly pilgrimage (on foot, of course), and Tipper (who's helping out) screaming @ Al "Did you bring enough coffee?" :D (Sorry, couldn't resist either :-) ) -
JMurphy at 20:22 PM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
Don't tell me we're quibbling over the words 'never been seen before' and 'rare' ? -
kdkd at 20:08 PM on 19 August 2010Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
BP #9 You're overstating your conclusions again with "Neither hurricane frequency nor intensity is related to AGW" Given that we can date the current global warming period starts in around 1975 it's a valid hypotheis to ask whether that has an influence on hurricane frequency and intensity. In fact, despite some suggestion that both have increased since the early 1970s, it seems from the data that the effect size is small, and because hurricanes are a complex phenomenon, it will take quite a while to have enough data to determine the relationship. Pretending that this hypothesis is somehow disproven is massively overstating your case, and shows that the work you do on this topic is tainted by your preconceptions. -
Eric (skeptic) at 19:53 PM on 19 August 2010What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
"The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet." Probably needs to be reworded to something like "6 times as many scientists predicted warming rather than cooling in 1970 [ref]" The numbers sound reasonable to me, but they should be supported. -
JMurphy at 19:04 PM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
So what, batsvensson ? You assert that the statement "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" is an urban myth. The Science Daily report I linked to states that "[t]he development and survival, both of the mosquito and the malaria parasite are highly sensitive to daily and seasonal temperature patterns and the disease has traditionally been rare in the cooler highland areas. Over the last 40 years, however, the disease has been spreading to the highlands, and many studies link the spread to global warming." The study I linked to asserts "...we review studies supporting and rebutting the role of climatic change as a driving force for highland invasion by malaria. We assessed the conclusions from both sides of the argument and found that evidence for the role of climate in these dynamics is robust." In fewer words, the original statement is NOT an urban myth, despite your claim. Unless, of course, you can back up your assertion ? -
RSVP at 18:53 PM on 19 August 2010The Strange Case of Albert Gore, Inconvenient Truths and a Man in a Powdered Wig
Kim B 4 It would obviously be worse if everyone went to see Al Gore instead. :) -
Berényi Péter at 18:40 PM on 19 August 2010Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
Sorry guys. Neither hurricane frequency nor intensity is related to AGW. If anything, there is a slight century scale decrease in hurricane activity over the Atlantic (with huge swings up & down). Click on image for explanation
One thing is sure. To choose 1972 for a starting point of the analysis (as in Fig. 2 above) is utterly misleading.
-
batsvensson at 18:09 PM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
JMurphy, So what? -
Paul D at 18:03 PM on 19 August 2010Is the sun causing global warming?
johnD@18 The 23% level isn't a majority share of the forcings proposed in any possible new thinking and having watched the Kirkby video, it is clear that current warming is largely caused by GHGs. Also it would seem that until the CLOUD experiments are completed, it is unclear what impacts cosmic rays may have on cloud cover. I accept that Kirkby has credibility, however one can apply the skeptic view of 'follow the money'. That wouldn't be a good idea and unlike AGW skeptics/deniers I wouldn't suggest at all that Kirkbys research is suspect! Indeed quite the opposite, the important thing is to understand what is going on so that we can do something about it. In the mean time any policy has to be based on what is known today. In any possible new scenario GHG emissions would need to be cut and work done to cope with climate change (eg. sea defences etc.). -
JMurphy at 17:53 PM on 19 August 2010The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Effects of Climate Change
batsvensson wrote : "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. Not entirely, it would seem : In recent decades, malaria has become established in zones at the margin of its previous distribution, especially in the highlands of East Africa. Studies in this region have sparked a heated debate over the importance of climate change in the territorial expansion of malaria, where positions range from its neglect to the reification of correlations as causes. Here, we review studies supporting and rebutting the role of climatic change as a driving force for highland invasion by malaria. We assessed the conclusions from both sides of the argument and found that evidence for the role of climate in these dynamics is robust. However, we also argue that over-emphasizing the importance of climate is misleading for setting a research agenda, even one which attempts to understand climate change impacts on emerging malaria patterns. The Quarterly Review of Biology, March 2010, vol. 85, no. 1 More information here : Climate Change One Factor in Malaria Spread -
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.
Prev 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 Next
