Recent Comments

Prev  2295  2296  2297  2298  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  2307  2308  2309  2310  Next

Comments 115101 to 115150:

115101. JMurphy at 08:31 AM on 19 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        Well, johnd, the difference again is that you do not provide accessible links and wish to believe something different than what has actually occurred. I will therefore just provide more evidence that 2009 was in fact 'worst' as most people would recognise it : In February 2009 the whole of south‐east Australia was experiencing a severe and protracted drought — a drought without precedent. During January 2009 many locations in Victoria experienced no rain at all. Most other locations were at near record lows. The drought continues. In late January 2009 exceptional heatwave conditions developed across Victoria, the most severe and prolonged in the history of south‐east Australia. On 7 February many all-time temperature records were set. In Melbourne the temperature reached 46.4°C. The previous record was 45.6°C, set on Black Friday, 13 January 1939. The duration of the heatwave was exceptional, with Melbourne setting a record for the most consecutive days above 43°C (three days). The countryside was parched. The heat and drought desiccated the vegetation of the forest floor. The fuel loads were extremely high. Those responsible for managing and fighting fires in Victoria compared the conditions with 1939 — prior to 7 February 2009 the most catastrophic bushfire season in Victorian history. They held a foreboding. There was an understanding that the landscape of Victoria was predisposed to ‘a catastrophic event’. (MY EMPHASIS) Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Interim Report I think I'll stick with the evidence, the facts and the experts. You stick with your opinion, if you prefer.
115102. johnd at 07:04 AM on 19 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Marcus at 19:52 PM, your rather pessimistic outlook underestimates what gains have been made to date addressing some of your concerns, and the ability of the scientists and other experts working on improving plant genetics and other techniques that increase productivity, not only in cropping but in all areas of agricultural food production. Already improved farming practices are allowing those implementing the latest techniques to dramatically reduce their usage of nitrogen fertilisers by adding legumes into their cropping cycle. Not only does the legumes fix nitrogen into the soil for the crops to follow, but the legumes provide an income as well. The use of GPS guidance has not only reduced soil compaction, but the accurate placement of both seed and fertiliser has reduced usage of fertiliser by ensuring the correct amount is being placed where it will be readily and fully available to the plant with minimum losses. These challenges ahead are not providing a brick wall for agricultural related scientists to bang their heads on, but rather an opportunity with a wall full of doors to be opened as they continue to unlock plant genetics, as process barely started, rather than one that has been exhausted as many seem to think given all the barriers they see as apparently permanent limitations.
115103. johnd at 06:29 AM on 19 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        JMurphy at 22:44 PM, information about the fires of 1851 are available from newspaper and government archives where it is all well documented. There are many ways to quantify the severity of a fire, however area burnt is the most appropriate when comparing fires, especially between times of low population distribution and density, and times of higher distribution and density. This is especially so if trying to correlate climate and fires. Perhaps you could compare the area burnt in the Feb 2009 fires and the Feb 1851 fires and comment. "The largest Australian bushfire in European-recorded history that burnt an area of approximately 5 million ha. which covered a quarter of Victoria." Source: 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2004. .......... "Damage incurred during the four days of the Black Thursday bushfire. Fires covered a quarter of what is now Victoria. This spans approximately 5 million hectares.The areas affected include Portland, Plenty Ranges, Westernport, the Wimmera and Dandenong districts. Approximately 12 lives, one million sheep and thousands of cattle were lost. After five weeks of hot northerly winds, on the 6th of February,1851 known as Black Thursday, probably Victoria's most extensive bushfires, apparently started in the Plenty Ranges when two bullock drivers left some logs burning which set fire to long, drought-parched grass. From an early hour in the morning a hot wind blew from the NNW, accompanied by 47C temperatures in Melbourne. There was extensive damage in Victoria's Port Phillip district. Huge areas of southern and NE Vic were burnt out. Fires burnt from Mt Gambier in South Australia to Portland in Victoria as well as the Wimmera in the north and central and southern areas including Semour, the Plenty Ranges and much of Gippsland , Westernport, Geelong, Heidelberg and east to Diamond Creek and Dandenong where a number of settlements were destroyed. There were 1.5m ha of forest burnt out plus vast areas of scrub and grasslands (total land burnt - approx 5m ha [DNRE,Vic]). Farmers at Barrabool Hills were burnt out or ruined; three men perished at Mt Macedon and wholesale destruction of the Dandenong districts was accompanied by similar widespread razings from Gippsland to the Murray (River). Other scorched areas included Omeo, Mansfield, Dromana, Yarra Glen, Warburton and Erica." Source: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA.
115104. michael sweet at 06:02 AM on 19 July 2010
        Irregular Climate podcast 8: Journalismgate, prawngate and rock n roll
        John, Doesn't this months data show that the hottest 12 month period is July 2009 through June 2010? I imagine you wrote that last month. Four months in a row as the record hottest. But didn't it stop warming in 1998?
        Response: I hadn't got around to downloading the last month's data so yes, it probably is already out of data. I'll make sure I grab the latest data before I finish the 1998 post.
115105. RSVP at 05:22 AM on 19 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        CBW "Radiation is a phenomenon by which any object at > 0 degrees K will give up its energy." I appreciate your getting back to this question given the multiple threads going on here... Taking a red hot iron plug inside an "ideal" insulator such as a glass thermos with reflective surfaces. Does it radiate? Or put the same plug into an iron box at the same temperature. Does it radiate in there? The answer of course is no. This is similar to standing waves if it isnt in any event the same thing. So heat does not transfer unless it has a cooler place to go, whether by radiation, conduction or convection, all this pointing to the initial statement that the "greenhouse" effect is a self limiting process.
115106. Peter Hogarth at 05:12 AM on 19 July 2010
        Watts Up With That concludes Greenland is not melting without looking at any actual ice mass data
        michael sweet at 08:06 AM on 17 July, 2010 The upper 200m or so are strongly affected by seasonal changes, (the upper 100m particularly so), and remember this is a study based on repeat hydrographic sections rather than continuous monitoring that would allow averaging over annual periods. As we go deeper the Ocean effectively does this averaging for us.
115107. jenikhollan at 03:47 AM on 19 July 2010
        Part Three: Response to Goddard
        Robert, thanks for the great trilogy. I have one suggestion for the final part: what about writing ‘Gt per year’ instead of ‘Gt year’? Seems that an exponent -1 over year had been lost... Gt a^-1 or Gt/a would be both valid. (I can imagine Gt.a as a unit of a forcing for an isostatic rebound, but scarcely for anything else.)
115108. CBW at 02:57 AM on 19 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        chriscanris @ 55: "I thought I had given a reasonable definition of catastrophe: that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels would set in train a concatenation of positive feedbacks with far reaching adverse consequences. Perhaps I should have said something on the lines of 'ever increasing adverse consequences beyond our capacity to control or mitigate.'" No, that's not a definition because it is entirely vague. "As matters currently stand, I just don't know whether the evidence exists to predict such an outcome confidently." That's because you haven't defined an outcome in specific enough terms to predict anything. "X% of the Greenland ice sheet melts by the year Y," is specific. "Global agricultural output falls by Z% by the year W," is another. "Really really terrible things happen," is not. You could at least try to calculate a probability for the two former scenarios. The latter is just a straw man conjured up by the deniers. RSVP: Heat flow is a process by which thermal energy is transferred from one object to another because of a difference in temperature. Radiation is a phenomenon by which any object at > 0 degrees K will give up its energy. Heat flow requires a delta-T, radiation only requires a T > 0. HumanityRules writes: "Reducing human society (and human beings) to simple carbon emitters is part of the problem of the approach of climate science and environmentalism in general. You reduce humanity to the role of polluter." Nobody is doing that reduction except within the minds of the deniers. Human progress isn't going to end because we control the amount of carbon we dump into the atmosphere. Human society has confronted numerous environmental challenges throughout its history, and this is just one more. When lead emitted by car exhaust was coating the planet in a toxic metal, human society was not reduced to "lead emitters." And we changed what we were doing in a way that made the world cleaner without bringing an end to all transportation. When industry was dumping tons of toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes, and the oceans, or burying it in ways that would leak into groundwater, human activity was not reduced to "toxic chemical emitter." And we changed what we were doing in a way that made the world cleaner without bringing an end to all industry. There are numerous other examples of similar societal self-regulation that have made the world cleaner and more healthy for everyone, and yet we still enjoy our fabulous standard of living. But people opposed every single step of that history with the claim that it would raise prices and destroy competitiveness and none of it was really necessary because there was no danger anyway. The AGW situation is no different. You can either include the true costs of an activity in its price, or you can hide the costs and pay in another way.
115109. chris at 01:48 AM on 19 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        HumanityRules at 13:40 PM on 18 July, 2010 “I try objectively to think about my field of science and how ideas compete, ego's clash and petty personnal rivalries work through. And then I look at climate science and see what's going on there and honestly try to ask myself whether this is just the same thing only exposed to full public scutiny. Honestly I see no connection between the two things it's bizarre to try to fit the tactics of both sides into your own field of science, try it. I'd go back to my original comment there is a dynamic going on here that does not exist in other fields of science.” (i) I can look at my own scientific field (broadly medically-related biophysics) and see on a lesser scale some of the efforts to misrepresent the science that are so astonishingly and brazenly apparent in relation to climate science. It’s obvious that every science subject whose findings clash with powerful interests will gather a “deadweight” of misrepresentation. In my field this might be efforts by the pharmaceutical industry to hide data showing adverse side effects (e.g. GSK on the side effects of paroxetine in children; earlier efforts by the industry to misrepresent evidence for increased risk of Reyes syndrome in kids taking aspirin; sadly lots of examples), and to induce efforts at selective publishing of data to support preferred outcomes (e.g. drug efficacies) etc. (ii) This is fairly widespread isn’t it? The attempts to misrepresent evolutionary and geological science by fundamentalist pseudoreligious groups are obvious (not to mention their less well know attempts to misrepresent the science on homosexuality). The efforts to take collective action to reduce CFC emissions was strongly opposed by relevant chemical industries and some of the individuals that attempted to misrepresent that science and its implications are doing the same with climate science. It would be naïve not to recognise that these nefarious things go on….science is a rather dangerous enterprise since it uncovers truths whose implications may threaten vested interests. (iii) How do we deal with this? In my field the relevant quality journals now make efforts to identify potential conflicts of interests and these have to be stated upfront by scientists submitting papers. In the US all drug trials involving the National Institutes of Health (NIH) must be publically deposited, and publically funded research (NIH, and NASA, NOAA etc in climate science) must be published as open access. Likewise with research funded by the Wellcome Trust and other research charities in the UK. Otherwise we focus on the science and make every effort to highlight the misrepresentations (as on this excellent web site). (iv) Where I think that your presentation is fundamentally false is in the implication that all of the political nonsense and blogospheric misrepresentation is part of the science. It isn’t. Scientists are getting on with their research and finding stuff out. Your picture of an arena where ”rival ideas compete, ego's clash and petty personnal rivalries work through” is a fair one. On top of that there are some astonishing things going on…but it’s not the climate scientists that are pursuing fanatical attacks on the integrity of scientists, or setting up crude political inquisitions in an attempt to sully scientists whose work they don’t happen to like, or organise conferences to pursue a pretence that there is an “alternative” approach to the science (creationists do this too), or set up websites to attempt to spread scientific “ideas” that border on the moronic, or who organise groups of thugs to harass scientists and their institutions. You may find it convenient to consider that this rubbish is a representation of climate science. But take way all the nonsense (it will happen one day just as the misrepresenters of the science on cigarette smoking or CFC’s drifted away once it was either convenient to do so or impossible to pursue the deceits) and climate science will be bubbling away just as it is now – including a fundamental source of crucial knowledge on the response of the natural world to massively enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.
115110. muoncounter at 01:34 AM on 19 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        #51: "those who are already spending millions on denialist PR – like Koch, Exxon etc. Ask yourself this: why are so many vested interests spending so much on spin, when they own research facilities and employ many scientists. Where is the fossil fuel funded scientific investigation of these ‘other contenders’? Rhetorical questions, of course. There is no ‘opposing’ science, because science isn’t adversarial. It is competitive, but not between arbitrary paradigms like political opposites." Oil company interests (and I used to be one) were indeed in the business of opposing science - at the most insidious of levels - science education. In short, oil companies funding the National Science Teachers Association were expecting behind-the-scenes influence on educational policy decisions. Reaction to this tidbit becoming public in the UK was heated, but did not get all that much publicity beyond the blogosphere in the US. I was an NSTA member at the time; there was a petition circulating amongst member teachers urging against NSTA to stop accepting such funds with strings attached. Exxon's policy changed (at least publicly) in 2007.
115111. Daniel2729 at 00:51 AM on 19 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        HR, regarding Oxfam: "It seems their intention now is to drag us all down the worst possible conditions rather than dream for a better life for all." It seems you're misunderstanding them. You can visit their site (http://www.oxfam.org) for more accurate information.
115112. adelady at 00:49 AM on 19 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        JohnD Being from Adelaide I'm not familiar with this concept you mention of "prolific growth". Any growth in this area is hard won. Parts of the Adelaide Hills are a good growing environment,but we don't have anything like the forests of the east coast. What we do have, like all wooded areas Australia wide, is a total absence of the small native critters that used to manage the undergrowth for us. Our imported foxes, rabbits, cats and dogs have destroyed the natural ecological mechanisms that previously limited the severity and impact of fire.
115113. jyyh at 00:28 AM on 19 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        As most sciences are gathering information and explaining phenomena on earth it is not surprising Global Climate Change appears on many lines of inquiry. Humanities, on the other hand, have trouble with the concept as there is but a very few examples of climate changes during the existence of civilization. Another group who may have trouble with the concept is the engineering sciences, as they are so obsessed with precision, and ACC is not very precise, f.e. because of possible mitigation and adaptation measures done by us. (classification - general science, easy blue)
115114. JMurphy at 22:51 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        Futurepol, you seem to have been ignored so far. Perhaps that is to do with your obsession with Al Gore, and the way you fling around accusations of 'fraud' and 'scam' so easily (and so baselessly). Just a thought...
115115. Daved Green at 22:46 PM on 18 July 2010
        Irregular Climate podcast 8: Journalismgate, prawngate and rock n roll
        love these podcasts thanks for the links :-)
115116. JMurphy at 22:44 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        johnd wrote : The worst fires in Victoria's settled history occurred in 1851. So, why does the State Library of Victoria state : "On 7 February 2009, Victoria was devastated by the worst bushfires in Australia’s history when 173 people lost their lives." Perhaps you'd better reveal your own source ? Perhaps your definition of 'worst' is different from theirs ?
115117. Marcus at 22:33 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Chris Canaris (#62). I think that the anti-wind-farms thing is a bit of a NIMBY thing-though its amazing how many farmers & small towns are quite happy with their wind-farms *after* they're built (they're good additional income for farmers & they're often tourist draw-cards too). There has been a low-level anti-wind farm campaign by elements of the FF lobby-largely based on memes regarding habitat destruction & bird deaths. As to hydro-power, I wasn't referring to large-scale dam construction like that which dominates the landscape of Tasmania. I was using the broad term Hydro to refer to various forms of tidal energy, Osmotic Potential Energy & so-called Micro-Hydro/Run-of-the-River schemes. Outside of that, algal biomass, waste bio-gas, solar, co-generation & geothermal remain as viable alternatives, alongside demand management. I personally think that the solutions are less difficult than we sometimes imagine-but I'm glad we agree in regards to energy efficiency!
115118. RSVP at 22:24 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Chris "But surely that's what we should be continually opposing...which is why this website is rather good wouldn't you say?" I agree, and barring fanatics, one way to "win" an argument is convincing people that what they were telling you is what you've been telling them all along.
115119. mspelto at 22:13 PM on 18 July 2010
        Part Three: Response to Goddard
        One other key point. In completing a mass balance assessment of Jakobshavn Pelto (1990) we did count the melt ponds from 1950's, 1960's and 1980's aerial photography and found no trend. Counting the same area in 2007 I noticed no trend. However, do not confuse the enhanced melting at the surface with the acceleration of the outlet glaciers. This is not what, I repeat not what, is causing their acceleration. As noted two years ago in a realclimate post the Outlet glaciers already have plenty of basal water pressure. In fact the summer drainage events have been found to reduce velocity on the outlet glaciers somewhat.
115120. ProfMandia at 22:07 PM on 18 July 2010
        Irregular Climate podcast 8: Journalismgate, prawngate and rock n roll
        Christopher Monckton and other deniers get far more press coverage than they deserve. Journalistic false balance has caused the public to be confused on climate change – the greatest threat to humanity this century. Worse, these deniers have used mainstream media to attack climate science and the scientists who pursue the truth. Let us now turn the tables. Monckton has been exposed by Dr. John Abraham and instead of hiding his tail and whimpering away, Monckton has gone on the offensive by attacking Dr. Abraham and asking his followers to essentially “email bomb” Dr. Abraham’s university president. We need to alert the media to this story. I have assembled a list of 57 media contacts in the hopes that my readers will follow my lead and send letters asking for an investigation of Monckton and his attack on Abraham. I have placed mailto links that will make it easy to send letters to several contacts at once with a single click. In the thread comments, please suggest other contacts in the US and from abroad. This blog thread can then be used in the future to alert the media to denialist activity. http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/turn-the-tables-on-monckton/
115121. chris1204 at 21:48 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        chris @ 61 Alas, I could tell you many a story about corruption and nepotism in academia but that would merely reinforce your perception of me as a grumpy old man. I realised long ago that I was temperamentally unsuited to a career in research. I bear no grudges about my limitations. I much prefer working with patients - each person comprises a unique 'clinical trial' with an 'n' of 1. And better than any clinical trial - the unique privilege of attempting to make someone's life more bearable. And yes, you have to work every bit as hard often struggling with people's intractable difficulties and the uncertainties these pose. To each his own.
115122. mspelto at 21:48 PM on 18 July 2010
        Part Three: Response to Goddard
        HR: The coastal thinning appears to be largely related to melting at the bottom of the ice shelves due to warmer ocean waters, note Holland et al., (2008) and Rignot et al., (2004). This leads to greater acceleration as ice thins and buttressing is reduced, and in the case of some of the thinner ice shelves enhanced rifting and ice area losses. Such as is the case with the Fleming Glacier below.
115123. chris at 21:36 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        RSVP at 20:48 PM on 18 July, 2010 "Most respectable religions admit that you cannot prove the existence of God, and in fact one's belief is a matter of faith. And even in the case of science as applied, for instance, to aerospace (i.e., Space Shuttles and commercial aircraft) your flight survival is ultimately a matter of personal faith and chance. The inability to recognize this distinction signals fanaticism and at best ignorance." eh? Did you really mean to say your second sentence RSVP? Your first and last sentences are interesting. As you say a fundamental element of "respectable religions" is that these are faith-based. Of course that doesn't mean that the heirarchies of these religions don't recognise real world realities (most "respectable religions" recognise and have commented on, the dangers inherent in unconstrained burning of fossil fuels), even if some of these may subsume scientific evidence in favour of ideologies (e.g. the deplorable views on condom use in relation to AIDS prevention by some elements of the Catholic Church). But the most outspoken antiscience "religious" groups are the fundamentalist "Christian" (one might prefer "pseudochristian"!) groups in the US (and also quite highly represented in Australia oddly). These are generally antiscience when it comes to global warming. What's interesting about these groups in relation to your comment, is that these have such a timid grasp on their views that they attempt to eliminate the concept of "faith" (in the religious sense) for a pseudoscientific "reality". Thus the dismal fallacies of creation "science" in which dull pretences that geological and biological structures can be understood in relation to a 6000 year old Earth. The timid proponents and their followers have to be fed an infant storybook version of science in order to satisfy their essential absence of faith.... I guess that's what you may mean by "fanatacism and at best ignorance". But surely that's what we should be continually opposing...which is why this website is rather good wouldn't you say?
115124. chris1204 at 21:09 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Marcus @ 57: I think for once we are in complete agreement :-). I must say that very little gets wasted in Accra or Saigon. No one can afford it. Individual family incomes often depend on recycling what the rich throw away. We could certainly do with far less wastage in Sydney. Our annual New Year pyrotechnics are very pretty but extraordinarily wasteful and irritate me no end. Not only do they generate lots of smoke and CO2 but also huge quantities of CO2 from traffic jams which tie up the whole City and harbour-side. Yes, I know I sound like Scrooge or a Pacific Islander Methodist minister but they happen to be one of my pet peeves. However, a switchover to a non fossil fuel energy economy presents its own challenges. Nuclear is a dirty word in many quarters and I notice you avoid mentioning it (I don't necessarily advocate it). Bio-fuels are also problematic (I note they also don't feature on your list). Wind Farms have generated a large groundswell of opposition which I don't think is orchestrated by the FF industry as best as I can tell. As for hydroelectric, try building a new dam anywhere in Australia with a Green Party which rose to prominence through its opposition to the damming of the Franklin River (now a world heritage site and deservedly so). That leaves landfill, geothermal, photovoltaic, and solar thermal at least in Australia. Australia, however, has a huge economic investment in the sale of fossil fuel to China on which much of its prosperity in the near future depends. The cheapness of our fossil fuels are a strong disincentive to weaning ourselves off our dependence particularly on coal. A bit of a cleft stick or perhaps a challenge for us all. I think it's time I tackled Blueprint Germany (courtesy of Dr Volker Oschman and John Cook on 28/06/10). My sojourn in Vietnam has distracted me from following up some of my reading. On another topic, I'm happy to see HR posting away - I think our fears that this site would become boring and anti-intellectual have proved unfounded.
115125. chris at 21:07 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        chriscanaris at 16:38 PM on 18 July, 2010 HumanityRules at 10:50 AM on 18 July, 2010 Each of you is presenting a woeful account of science and science careers – rather like the “grumpy old men” programme we have on TV! Addressing a couple of things: (i) chriscanaris – I gather you may be speaking from Australia where things are a little different from the UK. But I’ve just chatted with a Australian colleague, and I don’t think things are that different! In the UK you certainly don’t need a first class Honours degree “to get past Honours into a Masters/PhD stream”. You can do a PhD with a second class degree (a 2.1. is the requirement) and a Masters with a 2.2. In fact a Masters is a way of returning to the PhD stream. Two of our recent PhD students entered this way – they messed up their final exams, didn’t get a 2.1 and so did a Masters to return to their chosen career plan. It would be a dismal system that didn’t have the flexibility to ensure that excellent and dedicated individuals are able to pursue their goals. (ii) With respect, your comments about “honours projects” are simply silly. You seem to be attempting to create the impression that a scientist is locked into some conformist enterprise from the very point of his/her final year undergraduate degree project. Not only is that not true but it presents a rather dismal picture of youngsters and their motivations. Every final year project I’ve been engaged in either at first or second hand is an exploration to find out something new, to explore a hypothesis, to test a reagent, or help develop a new assay and so on. One might well find that the observations are incompatible with the particular hypothesis of the supervisor…so what…that’s life. Either way, one graduates and moves on with the next thing. Student’s are not mice that are cowed into conformism by their final year undergraduate experience! (iii) I don’t agree with your comments about PhD’s either. You may or may not do groundbreaking research (it doesn’t really matter – after all one can’t prejudge the success of a project else it wouldn’t be science). You’re not so much “dependent on the goodwill of your supervisor for financial support” as on the structures in place in the department (whether university graduate school, or research institute or industry) to ensure that students are adequately supported. If you happen not to like the project you’re doing, or don’t get on with the supervisor, or it turns out he doesn’t have the facilities to do what you want, then you can go somewhere else. Young scientists are not little mice that have to do what they’re told (things are somewhat less free in Japan and China, but at least in Japan efforts are being made to reduce the rigid academic hierarchies since these are recognised to be counter-productive). (iv) As for your comments about postdocs and publishing – we’ll they simply don’t accord with my experience either. All your comments about having to do this and that and the other can be boiled down to one sentence; “to succeed you have to work hard, be quite good at what you do, and be productive”. That’s life isn’t it chris? Why should life as a scientist be any different. As my PhD supervisor said to me many times “it isn’t supposed to be easy”! In publishing you certainly don’t “have to be careful not to upset a potential reviewer”. As with all aspects of science the criterion is “get it right”. If your work is sound it doesn’t matter if it might upset “a potential reviewer”. If you consider that there is a potential reviewer who might take exception to your work then you request that the editor doesn’t send your paper to that individual; or you request that the editor takes into account a potential conflict of interest. That’s part of the job of an editor. Neither s/he nor the scientist submitting the paper is a little mouse that has to conform to the curious Kafkaesque edifice that you and HR seem to be attempting to portray! (v) HR, you comment on an apparent “culling of mid career scientists”. What do you mean by that specifically? There’s no question that in the present economic climate many scientists are and will continue to lose their jobs (unemployment pretty much everywhere is rising; I wouldn’t say that my job is completely secure!). The pharmaceutical industry is closing down entire research and development centres (e.g. Merck closed down its UK neuroscience research centre in the UK a few years ago, and GSK has just shut down a huge research centre near London). What else does one expect? If you are speaking more generally, it would be helpful to know what you’re referring to. I would say that science does have some peculiar career aspects. For academic science probably the greatest “culling” occurs around the time a researcher is coming to the end of his/her first or second postdoc and realizes that s/he is unlikely to get a permanent position. There is also a significant mid-late career shift where “at the bench” scientists move towards more administrative or teaching roles. Otherwise it’s not clear what you’re referring to specifically….
115126. RSVP at 20:59 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Earlier post... "CBW at 07:15 AM on 18 July, 2010 RSVP, your "correction" to gpwayne's sentence was wrong. Period. The sentence was about radiation, not heat flow." If radiation is not heatflow, can you please explain what it is? ...plus a little food for thought... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space The current black body temperature of this photon radiation is about 3 K (−270 °C; −454 °F). Some regions of outer space can contain highly energetic particles that have a much higher temperature than the CMB.
115127. RSVP at 20:48 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Most respectable religions admit that you cannot prove the existence of God, and in fact one's belief is a matter of faith. And even in the case of science as applied, for instance, to aerospace (i.e., Space Shuttles and commercial aircraft) your flight survival is ultimately a matter of personal faith and chance. The inability to recognize this distinction signals fanaticism and at best ignorance.
115128. HumanityRules at 20:15 PM on 18 July 2010
        Part Three: Response to Goddard
        Robert sorry for my stupidity here but what you seem to be saying about antarctica is mass is being lost because mass is being lost. I didn't read a mechanism here. Coast thinning is a result of increased calving? But what is the cause of increased calving? Everything you discuss seems to be talking about general mechanisms that are unconnected to AGW. for example you seem to be connecting fast ice flow with channelling. Geology surely?
115129. Marcus at 20:09 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        John D (#46), what matters is that, unless you can show a *trend*, then the numbers you've shown us are utterly irrelevant. If you look solely at peak cloud cover the period you've shown then, for all but a few brief years, you're looking at levels of 67%-68%. Since 2000, there has been no significant increase or decrease in cloud cover, yet global temperatures have still risen by around +0.12 degrees (in spite of solar minimums unseen since the 19th century). Now, from my albeit brief reading of the subject, part of the mechanism of cloud formation is believed to be the interaction of cosmic rays with the atmosphere. According to the best hypotheses I've seen, when solar output is high, cloud levels tend to fall-as the sun's output shields the Earth from Cosmic Rays. When the sun's output is low, then cloud cover tends to rise. Now, isn't it *convenient* that the 13 years you've focused on happen to coincide with a rise in sunspot numbers for the previous solar cycle (around 1989-2000). I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a cyclical rise & fall in cloud cover which is inversely proportional to changes in sunspot numbers-certainly not something that can explain the consistent rise in temperatures of the last 60 years. This is what comes of trying to find a "trend" in a very small amount of data.
115130. Marcus at 19:59 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        The problem, Chris (#54), is that a significant proportion of the West's per capita energy consumption (&, hence, CO2 footprint) is the result of waste. Inefficient use of private vehicles, wasteful lighting on the street & in office buildings, poorly insulated homes with inefficient heaters & air-con units....& the list goes on. Western Nations are also much better placed to supply more of their electricity from non-fossil fuel based sources (such as hydro, geothermal, landfill & sewerage gas, solar (PV & thermal) & Wind)-yet instead our political leaders want to demand that the 3rd world cut back on the energy they need simply need to achieve economic parity with the West, rather than ask their citizens to make even the most reasonable cuts to their consumption. No wonder the developing world spat the dummy!
115131. Marcus at 19:52 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        John D, the only person showing a penchant for ignoring the facts is *you*. Even if the levels of yield increase achieved at the Horsham FACE trial were sustainable, the issue of decreased levels of protein, water-soluble carbohydrate, zinc & iron would still be of vital importance from a nutritional point of view. A roughly 1% to 5% decline in protein content (in g/kg) means that animals & humans will need to consume 1% to 5% more grain in order to ensure that they get their minimum daily dose of protein. This represents an on-cost to consumers. Of course, achieving these increased yields, even in the short-term, would require a significant (+25%) increase in nitrogen-which means an increased cost to the farmer. So, if nothing else, the FACE trial seems to indicate that primary produce will come at a much higher price under an enhanced CO2 environment. That said, the Horsham trial really doesn't deal with a number of other issues-such as the future impacts of acclimation, the potential for increased competition from weeds, the potential for increases in plant pests & diseases, changes in hydrology, the effects of warming on senescence, & the potential for an increase in extreme weather events-such as droughts & floods. Any one of these factors alone could significantly reduce the long-term yields of wheat crops-yet all of them are predicted to be a problem in an enhanced CO2 world. Also, if you need to know why nitrogen & water are limiting factors in plant metabolism, then I fear your knowledge of plant biology is extremely limited. Photosynthesis is a process primarily driven by enzymes & other nitrogen rich molecules. Water, of course, is a primary constituent of photosynthesis-but is also a key substrate for the majority of the plant's cellular processes & makes up a large proportion of the plant's Wet Weight. Starve a plant of either nitrogen or-moreso-water, & its unlikely that any amount of increased CO2 will result in improved yields. Indeed, the plant is almost certain to DIE before it yields ANYTHING-which is why droughts are such a big issue for farmers!
115132. johnd at 19:06 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        adelady at 17:51 PM, the increasing severity of bushfires in Australia? The worst fires in Victoria's settled history occurred in 1851. Perhaps you are confusing impact on humans and infrastructure which is dependant on population distribution. Or perhaps of those fires that are uncontrollable, essentially due to man's tendency to put out fires that ignite naturally, as he must do to protect life and assets, allowing fuel loads to build up to the extent it inevitably leads to fires that are uncontrollable, rather than any changed climate related factors. High fuel loads result from periods of prolific growth due to higher moisture levels which then burns when punctuated by periods of drier conditions. Missing fuel reduction burn targets is often blamed on conditions not being suitable for long enough to get targetted areas burnt.
115133. chris1204 at 18:58 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Graham @ 16 Thanks for turning your attention to my comments. You suggest that many of my arguments are sceptical as opposed to denier positions. For the record, as I have often stated on this blog, I believe that pumping ever increasing CO2 in the atmosphere exposes us to substantial risks and is an activity better avoided if at all possible. However, CBW @ 18 asserts re CAWG: This is a denier question, not a skeptical one. It creates a straw man that allows the denier camp to label its "opponents" as crazy alarmists out to stop all human progress. He adds: The probability of catastrophe requires you to define what you consider to be a catastrophe and propose something that might bring it about. Then you can try to compute a probability. I thought I had given a reasonable definition of catastrophe: that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels would set in train a concatenation of positive feedbacks with far reaching adverse consequences. Perhaps I should have said something on the lines of 'ever increasing adverse consequences beyond our capacity to control or mitigate.' As matters currently stand, I just don't know whether the evidence exists to predict such an outcome confidently. Equally, I can well understand many of us not wanting to wait and find ourselves embroiled in a worst case scenario. Consequently, I would happily support moves to make vehicles more energy efficient, public transport better, power generation much less fossil fuel dependent, and the like. However, you can see the problems with labels such as 'sceptic,' 'denialist,' 'warmist,' and the like which do very little to facilitate communication. I would add 'creationist' to the list - those who believe that God created the world and humanity include very many people who are very comfortable with the notion that he used evolutionary processes to attain his end. I find myself very much in sympathy with HR @ 36 who writes: Reducing human society (and human beings) to simple carbon emitters is part of the problem of the approach of climate science and environmentalism in general. You reduce humanity to the role of polluter. HR @ 49 adds: Still far worse to global human health is malnourishment and lack of access to resources in general. Again, I couldn't agree more. Any solution to environmental problems must take into account the dignity and legitimate aspirations of each and every human being on this planet. Each and every death through malnutrition, HIV, TB, malaria, crime, or unsafe work environments is one death too many whether it occurs in Sydney or Calcutta. You speak of 'climate colonialism.'I should add that have just returned from a visit to Ho Chi Minh City (or Saigon as the locals still prefer to call it) - my son just married a local lass. The contrast with Sydney resonated powerfully with my recollections of my childhood years in Ghana where the poverty was far greater. I would be greatly saddened to see the good citizens of Saigon including my newly acquired Vietnamese family denied the right to aspire to (if not attain)a higher standard of living. Much the same applies to the good folk I left behind in Accra where my mother ran a medical practice in the midst of a typically African area - we lived above her surgery and not in an expat ghetto. Neither Accra nor Saigon would have any hope of coping with climate change or any other crisis if deprived of basic infrastructure (Accra has open sewers though, irony of ironies, Ghana boasts a nuclear reactor). The poorer the society, the greater its adverse environmental impact and its carbon footprint (think of all the charcoal stoves in Accra). In Accra, malaria remains endemic - there is no drainage system and the most families live in single room dwellings. Kwashiorkor, the disease that has come to epitomise chronic protein insufficiency, is a Ghanaian word. The third world's almighty dummy spit at Copenhagen thus comes as no surprise - there is an almighty disconnect between its priorities and those of the prosperous Anglo-Euro-sphere.
115134. adelady at 17:51 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        The ozone hole? Surely this is an example of the difficulties encountered when we delay action on anthropogenic introduction of any superfluous stuff into the atmosphere. We've stopped, or as good as, releasing the nasties into the atmosphere and it will *still* take decades more to recover. The 30+ additional forest fires in California have as much to do with excessive drying of the landscape as anything else. Just as the increasing severity of bushfires in Australia is related to long term drying of the forests - not forgetting the astonishing frequency and severity of heatwaves.
115135. adelady at 17:40 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        "What are the chances I will publicly eat humble pie and recognize the greatness of a skeptic scientist (due to accomplishing the above)?" I don't know. But I too will bow down on my arthritic knees and kiss the ground this super clever person walks on. But wishful thinking hasn't yet won a lottery for me, I'm afraid.
115136. actually thoughtful at 17:05 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        ChrisCanaris - you bring up some good points about the real-world of science. Many scientists spend their careers testing out minor, but interesting hypothesis - "warmer water will increase dolphin populations" - etc. And I do think climate science is unique in 2 ways - there are DEEP pockets wanting it to be false - the extractive energy business, the most profitable business on the planet and all of us want this sentence lifted! It sucks - it is hard to think about - every trip to the store in a motor vehicle is also a guilt trip (will my CO2 be the final bit that pushes us over some tipping point...?) But let me ask you this - when all is said and done - would you rather have the reputation of Darwin, Einstein or ChrisCanaris (and I mean you no disrespect whatsoever). The ego drive of great scientists (and some not-great scientists) is sufficient motivation to create the hypothesis,beg/borrow/steal for funding and create results that prove something great/new/interesting. At this point, with the stakes so high, if the skeptics had ANYTHING, anything at all, they would put a proposal in front of Exxon or BP and get funded in a heartbeat (not to say they wouldn't be funded by NSF or other government research funding arms - but even if they weren't, they have a plan B that you probably don't have in say, Australian drug research). To the best of my knowledge the skeptics have come up with: pick at the edges of the some of the data, where the data is inconclusive or COULD be interpreted in a less warming way; attack the methods of the science done so far (Mann, Jones, etc) and; the exact size of the positive feedbacks isn't yet known. As I said to HR - where are the big ideas that are lacking funding? I would have egg on my face, I would be embarrassed at my support of AGW - but I also commit right now to personally thanking the Principal Investigator who shows that AGW is false, and that there is a BETTER, valid comprehensive world view that explains everything we are seeing now and doesn't hold the AGW sentence over our head. What are the chances I will publicly eat humble pie and recognize the greatness of a skeptic scientist (due to accomplishing the above)?
115137. Futurepol at 17:01 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        This topics question is = Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act? Well according to the "Climate-changers" and Al Gore. It is perfectly fine to never act on fixing the ozone layer, or re-forestation, or vehicle emmissions mandating, hybrids, electrics, or inerting Co2 into a harmless chemical, orbital shades, or any other reaistic long term solution. They only want to destroy economies by cap and trading with no effect on emissions nor solutions whatsoever. Acting irresponsibly is disasterous, and not acting, which is what the current "Climate-change" frauds insist on, is horrific.
115138. HumanityRules at 16:53 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        50.chriscanaris I'd have to agree with that. Young scientist might have the far reaching dreams but that is in no way represented by what they do. It's only those with a long CV, a good track record and plenty on grounding that can afford the pleasures of testing orthodoxy. All the rest are grinding out the results that are easily publishable. That's all that real matters to younger scientists unfortunately. You don't need a conspiracy to generate a concensus especially when there is an influential body pushing for it.
115139. gpwayne at 16:45 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Hi Y’all – and thanks for the comments. robhon

        Rather than equating scientists to a flock of birds the more accurate metaphor would be a herd of cats. Each is of its own mind. But when you see all the cats heading is the same direction... THEN you know something is really happening.

        Nice one – wish I’d thought of that. skepticstudent

        While I disagree totally with everything he said, I'm still whirling and dazed trying to figure out what God, Creationism, or Christians have to do with a supposed ACGW.

        I suspect your confusion may be a little exaggerated, but I will expand on one aspect this point: as a business analyst I came to understand that a key skill I had to develop was pattern recognition. The relationship between creationism – and many other arguments like Y2K, ozone holes, 9/11 and others – is the pattern of argument. They all rely on similar techniques, similar chains of inference that never quite connect, similar sleights of hand when confronted with hard evidence, similar attacks on the principles when nothing else will suffice. In this respect, creationists demand something they know they can’t have – absolute proof in the fossil record of a connection between other primates and homo xxx – which they demand so they can claim that without such proofs, the theory can be shown to be inadequate, or flawed, or broken. It is sophistry of course, but many are taken in. (Funny that creationists don’t support the obvious notion that if God was that smart, evolution is what He would invent to save Himself the bother of doing it all by hand). MattJ

        …with such a hard battle ahead of us, we cannot afford to waste time and energy preaching to the choir.

        Actually, one of the most common themes in all military history is the need to maintain morale, especially when you are outnumbered by the baying mob. tobyjoyce

        What Graham is arguing (I think) is that nothing associated with rising temperature in the world today makes sense except in the light of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

        More or less, Toby – to refine my argument a little, I would restate it this way: there is no other theory that satisfactorily addresses every line of investigation related to changes in the climate. All investigations converge, meeting at the same place: ACC. JBowers Hello old bean (JB and I fight the good fight together over at the Guardian from time to time). HumanityRules Referring back to my point about pattern recognition, may I observe that your argument is a ‘standard text’ for denialists – a cliche, in other words, and a very recognisable type of assumed victimhood:

        …[climate science is] driven by political necessity not empirical data.

        Political reaction has always lagged the science. It is the ice melting that drives political action, despite their definition of necessity being the requirement for business as usual – because this paradigm is the most profitable. If you think the "tax and control" arguments have merit, read this post on my blog. You then go on to claim that scientists are being forced, coerced, intimidated etc – the net result being that nobody is investigating other mechanisms that might cause the climate to warm. May I point out that the greatest prize in science right now would, without any doubt at all, go to the man, woman or team who could seriously dent the ACC theory with credible science? And that if they could not find the funding from conventional sources due to some alleged control-freakery or connivance, they would find it readily, and supplied in copious quantities by those who are already spending millions on denialist PR – like Koch, Exxon etc. Ask yourself this: why are so many vested interests spending so much on spin, when they own research facilities and employ many scientists. Where is the fossil fuel funded scientific investigation of these ‘other contenders’? Rhetorical questions, of course. There is no ‘opposing’ science, because science isn’t adversarial. It is competitive, but not between arbitrary paradigms like political opposites. The reason scientists are not spending much time on anything other than GHG cause/effect is – as I said at the start – there is little else credible left to study (notwithstanding the CERN Cloud work, which is interesting and wholly credible because it is good science. Kirkby doesn't seem to be very intimidated, does he?)
115140. Futurepol at 16:44 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        More to my post: We SHOULD act. we should act on scrapping the Co2 focus and actually fixing the ozone layer, fixing deforestation and start re-forestation, mandating hybrids and electrics and sugar beet ethanol for global fuel sources, and chemistry based change of Co2 gas into a harmless chemical or something that can be used. Thats right, REAL CHANGE, something the Co2 scammers aren't interested in. Remember in Gore's self-glorification project how he spoke of the cause of polar ice cap melting? Was it Co2? Nope. Even HE outlined the real cause. More solar "radiation" hitting the ice, melting it, pooling the water due to natural gravity, and erosion based effects. Bottom line, more solar radiation hitting caps due to weakened ozone layer. Then he says nothing about it ever again for years now. I would not be surprised if he has since deleted this from his new videos in production. What a fraud. Have any of you guys researched into the factual and real possibility chemistry based approach of 'inerting' Co2 by changing it through chemical process into something else? Quite easy. What about deforestation law changes, reforestation laws, mandating backburning, or emmissions on vehicles? California emits less pollution from all cars on the road than one forest fire causes yet the Ignoramous Sierra club causes 30+ additional fires each year due to their ignorant conservation laws. Yosemite national park was ruined, burnt to the ground by the Sierra Club's incompetance, and 10+years of emissions cause by their ignorance. They will never be regarded again as a reputable source of information.
115141. chris1204 at 16:38 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        actually thoughtful @ 37 You say to HR: Your post is full of cynicism. Overturning the standard quo is the dream of every young person, and certainly of young scientists. From my limited exposure to scientific research (personal experience, interaction with scientists, and reading scientific papers in my field), this is certainly not the case. From the moment you embark on your honours research project, you are constrained by your supervisor and the prevailing views in his/her lab and the department. Any hopes of overturning a consensus are rapidly dissipated. Most science proceeds by tiny incremental advances in ever increasingly specialised areas. HR seems to have some real insights into the enormous competitiveness in the scientific world, the size of the egos, and the fierce struggle for survival epitomised by the struggle for research grants. To get past Honours into a Masters/PhD stream, you have to have first class honours. No honours project would be on the scale that would overturn a prevailing paradigm. First class honours are very difficult to attain - most science students leave the field at this point and find a paid job - often secondary school teaching or a job in industry. I myself quit basic (ie, pre-clinical) sciences upon completing the equivalent of an 'Honours' degree and went back to medicine after a nightmarish year in which I effectively sunk what my then supervisor thought would be a groundbreaking explanation of sudden infant death syndrome. I should add that I didn't do anything startling or innovative and in any case I didn't have the self-confidence to handle the stresses inherent in trying to climb the greasy pole of lower level academia. I did some modest research while training in psychiatry (much less stressful when you have a secure job). Even at PhD level, you very rarely find yourself doing ground breaking research. Mike Mann is one outstanding exception. At the same time, you depend on the goodwill of your supervisor for financial support (opportunities to tutor, an adequate allocation of grant moneys for materials and equipment, and the like). At postdoctoral level, you have to struggle for appointment as a lecturer in your field - often your initial appointment is temporary. Even when you attain tenure, your academic salary does not suffice to carry on research - you need grant moneys. To get these, you need to have a good name and a sufficiently impressive publication record. You also have to have a good publication record to be promoted. Indeed, much research is as much driven by the need to publish and be cited as it is by the genuine importance of the questions posed. To publish good research, you have to go through the peer review process which is sometimes intensely stringent, sometimes lackadaisical, and sometimes in-between. However, you also have to be very careful not to upset a potential reviewer. Hence, there are powerful incentives to avoid controversy. There are equally powerful incentives to piggy back onto 'fashionable' areas. Does this apply to climate science in all its branches? Frankly, I am not qualified to say. It does apply strongly in medicine in Australia where a great deal of research is funded by pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies fund research partly because it creates goodwill and good publicity. They also like to fund clinical research which may create markets for their products. The potential for distortions has generated significant debate in medical journals though on the whole pharmaceutical companies have an interest in not doing anything too obviously shonky.
115142. Philippe Chantreau at 16:24 PM on 18 July 2010
        Facebook page to support John Abraham
        The only thing that Monckton is "artful" in is the grotesque. The buffoon has received all the attention he deserved and should get no more, really.
115143. Futurepol at 16:22 PM on 18 July 2010
        Does partial scientific knowledge mean we shouldn't act?
        The Climate is changing, but what is changing it? MANY things and NOT overwealmingly Co2. The political Fraudsters would snowball you into thinking it's only Co2 and the only plan of action is to cap and trade without any responsible solutions, and open up the gammet on wasted money bureacracy, yet do NOTHING about the ozone layer, significant change to vehicle emissions and production emissions, orbital shades, re-forestation, ocean re-breeding and changes in fisheries, and chemical 'inertion' of Co2, or other alternatives. This just highlights the widespread fraud going on. Acting in the wrong way, or an irresponsible way is worse than not acting. You give the example of lasik eye surgery, but your comparison is dead wrong. with lasik this is a well research specific and exact tangible science with millions of tests and results, whereas the climate is still an almost immeasurable science many are still trying to understand. A more proper comparison in your example would be trying out lasik for the first time by going into massive public and private debt while knowing much of the money will not be spent on lasik research or development whatsover, and your eyes will be fired with an unproven idea that has not been used, tested to any significant degree, with no results documentation (ie sequestration) Maybe you might want to present a point that is actually relevant or even possibly level unlike this garbage point of should we not act and trying to falsely claim this has any similarity to a lasik procedure concept. Wow.
115144. HumanityRules at 15:42 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        50.Donald Lewis Still far worse to global human health is mal-nourishment and lack of access to resourses in general. Being vastly over-weight may be bad for your health but it's not showing up in the broard US metrics such as life expectancy, which against all the odds is still going up! Again this degraded view of humanity would prefer to see us as greedy over-consumers or victims of the food industry rather than challenge the real issues. One thing that brought this home strongest during the Copenhagen Summit was Oxfam, a Christian charity which for the whole of it's history has argued for more resourses for the developing world. It turned it's attention to the industrialized nations for their over-consumption. It seems their intention now is to drag us all down the worst possible conditions rather than dream for a better life for all. Personnally I'd prefer to follow the idea of more for all even if that means I'm flawed.
115145. Donald Lewis at 14:50 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Thanks Graham. Regarding the perils of wielding Ockham's razor... I have a possibly 'weaker' version Ockham's razor that works for me. If the traditional version is something like "Of two explanations that equally well explain the data you have on hand, the less complicated explanation tends to be the correct (better?) explanation." , then the weaker version is "Of two explanations that equally well explain the data you have on hand, assume the less complicated one is correct as a working hypothesis because it will be easier to disprove it with new data." If one disproves it, one can move on, and the chance one can move on is increased because it is easier to empirically debunk the less complicated argument. In either version, the problem remains that people dispute the ranking of the complexity of explanations and whether two different explanations equally well explain the data. In the climate change blogs, the situation is confounded because some folks who don't generate new data simply deny the current, full ensemble of data. No form of Ockham's razor addresses that situation. Sigh... I mean look at the preceding comments, eg Humanity Rules. I hear adults and children in the US are over weight and that it is a public health issue. What an insult! But If humanity rules, why doesn't humanity just decrease the acceleration due to gravity. That would solve the weight problem. Oh wait. humanity may not actually rule gravity, but it does rule perception... better to claim that US citizens are not overweight and the data is flawed. Why? Any reason may do. Well the climate data, at least, we know is flawed because "You may be describing general scientific rules but climate science is different from any other science. It's driven by political necessity not empirical data. There is a dynamic here that doesn't really exist in any other field." Oh, that explains the data? Those climate scientists are different. Uh, planetary scientists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, glaciologists, oceanographers, mammalogists, ornithologists, ichthyologists, herpetologists, invertebrate biologists, ecologists, phenologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and statisticians are all conspiring with this unscientific, oddball, special group of "climate scientists" to create a fantasy of climate change?
115146. johnd at 14:08 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Marcus at 13:01 PM , what you seemed determined to ignore is that despite lower grain protein %, with increased yields the amount of protein produced in the grain PER HECTARE INCREASES. In addition given that plants are about 50% carbon, increased structural growth, not only requires firstly an additional supply of that carbon, but even a very basic understanding of plant biology surely suggests that the plants will also require additional water and nitrogen, but somehow this basic truth seems to elude you.
115147. johnd at 13:52 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Marcus at 13:08 PM, you seem to have drawn a lot of conclusions about what might, or might not be aberrations or normal and missed the point completely. A decrease of about 5 percent corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. Trend or not it is something that still has to be accounted for over the period observed, especially a change of that magnitude. Disregard whether it is a trend or not and consider instead how it fits in or otherwise with other observations over the same period.
115148. HumanityRules at 13:40 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        44.Marcus I think most, if not all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's the apocalypse that is usually questioned. Secondly I don't whinge I point out that a political processes is occuring here and that is a two-sided process, the AGW supporters on this website only seem to recognise one side of this debate exists while on the other side is pure science and empirical data, that's selective blindness. Your description of the underhand tactics is applaudable except that it's intention is simply to paint one side as devils and the other crusaders. Unfortuantely the more degenerate individuals on the other side of the debate believe the same thing but in reverse. The Deniers have thier own brave heros on WUWT while the AGW are evil communists. Approach the debate from this perspective and we'll get nowhere. I try objectively to think about my field of science and how ideas compete, ego's clash and petty personnal rivalries work through. And then I look at climate science and see what's going on there and honestly try to ask myself whether this is just the same thing only exposed to full public scutiny. Honestly I see no connection between the two things it's bizarre to try to fit the tactics of both sides into your own field of science, try it. I'd go back to my original comment there is a dynamic going on here that does not exist in other fields of science
115149. Marcus at 13:08 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Hmmm John D (post#34) seems like you're cherry-picking again. If you look at the period just prior to 1987, I see cloud cover at levels closer to 65% to 66%. The 69% cloud cover around 1987-1990 seems more like an aberration than a normal state of affairs. For much of that graph, cloud cover levels seem to hover at closer to 64% to 67%. I certainly don't see any *trend* in cloud cover-either increasing or decreasing.
115150. Marcus at 13:01 PM on 18 July 2010
        The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
        Ah, John D is still pushing his beloved FACE trial as proof that a higher CO2 world will be better for agriculture-& still he ignores the basic facts. He ignores the fact that evidence of Acclimation was already being seen by the researchers at the end of the 3rd year of the trial-suggesting that peak yield increases of +20% had already been reached (longer term trials suggest only a 5% to 8% increase). He ignores the fact that the 20% yield increase was achieved only under the optimum conditions (& that the so-called "sub-optimum" conditions are not a truly accurate simulation of the conditions farmers will face in an increased-CO2 world). He ignores the fact that nitrogen demand increased by about 25%, in spite of a decrease in protein yield (which of course means that human & animal consumers will need to eat *MORE* grain to get a similar amount of protein-thus partly negating the increased yield benefits). He ignores the fact that the FACE trials also don't simulate for changes in weed propagation &/or the presence of insect & microbial pest species in an enhanced CO2 world. The fact he *really* ignores, though, is that a number of trials have shown that increased nitrogen &/or water-in ambient CO2 conditions-can yield the same, or greater, levels of yield increase as enhanced CO2 conditions-but without any decline in protein content. This strongly suggests, once again, that it is nitrogen & water-not CO2-which are the limiting factors in plant yield. The fact remains that, if John D were reading the FACE trials, & all the other studies cited above, in an unbiased fashion, then he'd realize that none of them really support his assertion that increasing the planet's levels of CO2 will *automatically* lead to improvements in agricultural output. It's exactly this kind of simplistic thinking that so undermines the denialist argument.

Prev  2295  2296  2297  2298  2299  2300  2301  2302  2303  2304  2305  2306  2307  2308  2309  2310  Next