Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 Next
Comments 118001 to 118050:
-
Paul D at 03:41 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Re my last post... Found a copy on a blog. Read it quick before the Telegraph track it down! http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/06/telegraph-steps-outside-its-alternate.html -
Paul D at 03:23 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
I thought I would do a search in the news filter of Google for anything about Monckton. It came up with this headline: "Viscount Monckton is an embarrassment to global warming sceptics ..." Which was apparently a blog entry by Tom Chivers: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100008371/viscount-monckton-is-an-embarrassment-to-global-warming-sceptics-everywhere/ But it appears the Telegraph have deleted the page! But Google still has it indexed as being posted 3 days ago. Does anyone know how to retrieve an archived/cached page? -
John Russell at 03:20 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Monckton's reply was posted on the 4th June. If Monckton was not the perpetrator and someone is impersonating him, Monckton -- being as litigious as he is -- would have wasted no time in putting the record straight. I think we can be pretty sure it is him, though it would probably be quite a good idea for JC to make contact to confirm. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:40 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
CB, I'd say if Monckton's reply here is dubious it's because it's so relatively restrained. For one thing, there are not enough adjectives. Language from Monckton's reply to Abraham: propaganda artifices hilariously mendacious he looks like an overcooked prawn artful puerilities fourteenth-rate zoologist man on the Clapham omnibus climate-extremist Comrades cobble together his ramblings deliberately dishonest personal attack an ingenious fiction hide the truth make this nonsense look plausible wriggled and waffled flagrant and deliberate misrepresentation mere Bible-College lecturer spectacular exaggerations mawkish sci-fi comedy horror movie artfully distorts or carefully omits shoddy little piece of lavishly-funded venom serious, serial, material errors, exaggerations, or downright lies gross professional misconduct academic dishonesty and deliberate lying -
Ned at 02:24 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Clearly, a lot of people don't care for Mr Monckton. That's very understandable. But please, let's keep our attention focused on the validity (or lack thereof) of his scientific claims and those of Dr Abraham. If you have an important point to make, please try to make it without adding a lot of emotionally loaded language. If the language itself IS the point, and you just want to express your opinion of Mr Monckton's character or honesty, there are lots of other sites around the blogosphere where that kind of discussion is appropriate. This isn't specifically addressed to anyone in particular, more a reflection on the comments in the various Monckton related threads. -
lord_sidcup at 02:07 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
#47 Whilst that is always possible the comment is from an impostor and not Monckton, I have to disagree with you that the comment is "too over the top" to be Monckton. Monckton is quite prepared to use intimidation to silence his critics. Tom Chivers of the UK Telegraph did a blog posting reporting Abraham’s criticisms of Monckton. The posting was subsequently and mysteriously taken down, but not before Chivers posted this update: "Update: Lord Monckton has phoned up and, in a rather charming fashion, expressed disappointment at the contents of this post. He was very polite about it and made me feel a bit small about the "popinjay" and "jester" comments, and he pointed out that that I hadn’t phoned him for comment. He says he is going to get in touch with me after he has prepared a response to Prof Abraham, and I have said that I am happy to revisit this topic when he does so. I have, however, refused at least for now to take the blog down, until I have spoken to my editor." I can only assume the editor had the post removed, although a copy can be found here: http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/06/telegraph-steps-outside-its-alternate.html A blog posting by James Delingpole that repeats a lot of Mockton’s name-calling and ad hominem attacks on Prof Abraham has been allowed to remain online at the Telegraph. -
John Russell at 01:58 AM on 8 June 2010Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
To add to what Doug says; you know your stuff, and you keep it simple, John, which means that you make a good interviewee. The only point where I thought you sounded a little defensive was on the question about extreme weather events. While your answer was, of course, perfectly correct, it might have been worth pointing out that a lack of convincing evidence of the increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes does not in any way detract from all the other accumulated evidence that AGW is real. Overall though, a very good show -- with every new interview you'll get even better. -
CBDunkerson at 01:17 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
BTW, are we sure that the 'Monckton' commenter above really is Christopher Monckton? When I read it I thought it seemed a bit 'over the top'... even for him. -
barry1487 at 00:36 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Monckton at 02:39 AM on 7 June, 2010 Lord Monckton,Mr. Abraham here admits that he spent several months working on his presentation attacking me personally in the most venomous terms
Having seen the entire video, I cannot remember even one occasion where Abraham used any terms against you that were 'venomous'. Nor can I recall any phrases that fit this description. As I recall, criticism was direct, but couched in mild and usually suppositional language. For the record, would you kindly quote/give directions to the terms you found so egregious?The usual practice in academe is that anyone wishing to rebut another's work notifies that other of his intention and of the rebuttal, before it is published, to give that other the opportunity to prevent needless errors.
This is the case with formal papers destined for peer-review. Abraham's video, obviously, is not one of these. However, if you feel that this standard does apply, and that it applies equally, I am curious to know the steps you have taken to contact those scientists whose work you have rebutted, and what their replies were. Thanks in advance. -
J Bowers at 00:14 AM on 8 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
@ 39 BPL Set up a kitty and I'll chip in on expenses and even travel, if they wouldn't stump up for any of those. -
ProfMandia at 23:27 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
#33 ClimateNow took the words right out of my mouth. Scientists have entered the PR ring very late so much damage has been done and our skills are not nearly as honed as the Moncktons and Moranos out there. However, we are now starting to hit back. Do not be satisfied with hitting back on blogs. You must contact the mass media outlets and those that might exert influence on people who lie and misrepresent. As an example, please see Whose lie is it anyway? Easterbrook caught red-handed and consider sending email to Dr. Easterbrook's geology Chair, the WWU President and WWU Provost. An example of what I have sent appears here along with contact information. President Shepard did respond to me but he is still not completely aware of Easterbrook's fraud and the damage it is causing to the name of WWU. I also have been contacted by geology faculty at WWU and NONE of them support Easterbrook. It is also clear that they encourage you all to send emails to the President and Provost because outside pressure will carry more weight. Let these examples be a message to the Moncktons and the Easterbrooks out there: you are bringing a knife to a gun fight. Global Warming: Man or Myth? My Global Warming Blog Twitter: AGW_Prof "Global Warming Fact of the Day" Facebook Group -
chris at 23:17 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:33 PM on 7 June, 2010 Nope Arkadiusz, you really need to be specific. Which "important - major work (cleverly skipped by the professor) that, for example in many ways the sun can decide on the climate" are you referring to specifically? If you are accusing someone of "cherrypicking" you need to illustrate that specifically. Otherwise it's simply an unsubstantiated accusation. I'm curious to know what you mean by "We are on the same side". In science there aren't really "sides", even if there are differences of opinion over specific interpretations of observations. Do you mean that you share Monckton's view that it's acceptable to misrepresent the science, attempt to bully scientists and accuse them without evidence of cheating and lying, in order to pursue a political agenda? Is that the "side" you're on? -
thpritch at 22:57 PM on 7 June 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Just a matter of sematics but I have a problem calling most of the carbon sinks "sinks". To the lay person, a "sink" implies an essentially non-reversible storage system. In other words, once the carbon is absorbed into a "sink", it will never come out. In reality we know that there are very few essentially irreversible carbon storage systems out there. Rather most of what we call "sinks" are very reversible and are indeed one of the reasons why our system has a feedback to rising temperatures (e.g., increased methane production from bog, release of methane from thawing permafrost, increased release of methane from ocean methane hydrate deposit, etc.). For clarity, I would suggest that we start calling reversible carbon storage systems "reserviors" and reserve the term "sinks" to only those systems that are essentially irreversible (e.g., deposition of carbon to deep ocean sediments). -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:33 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
@ Monckton We are on the same side. I too am a skeptic here - extreme - complete skeptic, but ... I agree with Professor John Abraham, that some of the citation was inaccurate and biased interpretations. But ... Selection of citations made by Professor Abraham is a typical "cherry picking" - as if there were no important - major work (cleverly skipped by the professor) that, for example in many ways the sun can decide on the climate ... Well, the crypto-invectives and comments "ad hominem" ... Both the criticism of AGW (IPCC), and "criticism of this criticism" (discussed here) were not so fair and honest. -
JMurphy at 22:07 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
I wonder if Monckton would call his fellow so-called skeptics, Spencer and Christy, Bible-bashers, the way he highlights the 'Bible college' here ? In fact, it is particularly cynical and a good illustration of how hypocritical and insincere he is, because he is a noted Roman Catholic and has always been so. I don't mention that just to belittle him (i.e. he believes in a god/religion, etc. so he must be suspect); but to show how he can be a religious believer (who would, presumably, be outraged by attacks on him using that religious belief) but also someone who will use someone's supposed religious background to make snide comments against them. The man makes my skin crawl so I admire Barton Paul for his challenge - which will, no doubt, be ignored. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:51 PM on 7 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
@muoncounter - a propos "... Fourier Analysis of sunspot cycles ..." I agree with the assertion that the "direct" activity of the sun is not explained by current climate change - a big mistake Monckton. Equally, however, changes in solar activity can not be explained by example of the middle Holocene optimum, or LIA ... Nothing is able to change, however, that the current warming is a "perfect fit" in the series: Bond events, Hallstatt, circa 4.2 thousand. years (not yet proven) and recently proven - circa 6 thousand. years (Xapsos and Burke, 2009 - "Reconstructed sunspot data are available that extend solar activity back to 11 360 years before the present. We have examined these data using Hurst analysis, a moving average filter, and Fourier analysis. All of the procedures indicate the presence of a long term (≈6 000 year) cycle not previously reported. A number of shorter cycles formerly identified in the literature by using Fourier analysis [...], Bayes methods, and maximum entropy methods were also detected in the reconstructed sunspot data."). There are theories of "indirect" effects on the Sun: "cosmic rise" (in my opinion incorrect) and the mutual influences: the Sun and planets (including Earth, of course) - "astronomical cycles". The latter theory (finally!) Nicola Scafetta interested in: Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and its Implications, 05.06.2010 - "A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century. It is found that at least 60% [...] of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective SYNCHRONIZATION OF COUPLED OSCILLATORS." Thus, despite the erroneous assumptions Monckton is right - it changes on the sun are decisive - are crucial ..., so that not only that its "light" activity ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:37 PM on 7 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Please read the whole post, "the accused": http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/viscount_congress_testimony_may_2010.pdf - some (more interesting than his erroneous theory of sunspots) appear where the arguments are little known and difficult to challenge.Response: Actually, I have read Monckton's testimony to Congress and listened to the audio of the whole event. I noted that his two "pet arguments" in the aural testimony were "Global warming is caused by global brightening" and "Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity" which is why I did two recent posts debunking both these arguments. -
CBDunkerson at 21:28 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
The part of Monkton's reply which stunned me was the bit about how climate change is complex and highly specialized science beyond the ken of 'a mere fluid dynamics professor at a Bible university'. I mean... how can he not see the irony? Seriously... Monkton is attacking Abraham's credentials? MONKTON! The mind boggles. -
bpl1960 at 20:44 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
My Dear Viscount, I was delighted to see a venue in which I might contact you, as it were, directly. I am a pauper, unfortunately, so my opportunities to travel are limited, but perhaps some organization can help. You have been calling, I believe, for open debate on climate change issues? I am willing to debate you, if you or some organization you are associated with would be so kind as to arrange things. If sufficiently far from my home in Pittsburgh, PA, I would require only transportation. It is my position that *Global Warming is real *Global Warming is Anthropogenic *Global Warming is the most serious threat human civilization has ever faced outside of nuclear war. My credentials in the field are modest, but do include a bachelor's degree in physics (University of Pittsburgh 1983), past presidency of the Tripoli Science Association, and twelve years writing radiative-convective models of planetary atmospheres. Your degree is, I believe, in journalism? Or classics? So I hope my qualifications will be sufficient. I await your reply. -Barton Paul Levenson Writer, Programmer, Scientist, and Internet Pain in the Ass. -
chris at 19:07 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Passing Wind at 12:32 PM on 7 June, 2010 First of all, let's be clear what we're talking about. In the section you're referring to Abraham is responding to Monckton's comments from around 36:30 minutes into the video of his presentation Monckton has just shown one of the Mann et al proxyreconstructions, asserted, without evidence, that they "actually lied in print", and then turns to the data that you are talking about. He says (I'm transcribing from the presentation, and possibly haven't got this verbatim - please check if you consider it important):"......and now here is the truth about the Medieval Warm Period. Here are just a few papers, 8 or 9 of them, out of the papers contributed during the last 20 years by more than 700 scientists, from more than 400 institutions, in more than 40 countries establishing that the Medieval Warm Period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present. That is the scientific consensus if you do science by consensus which the UN says it does. But on the question of the Medieval Warm Period the IPCC refuses to accept the scientific consensus. Instead it uses made up graphs..
I think we can all agree that's simply false. Monckton is grossly misrepresenting the scientific consensus, and the IPCC (and in the meantime making a series of disgraceful and false accusations). What about the data sets that Monckton shows? Note that these are merely "eye-candy". Monckton says nothing about them whatsoever other than to use them as a backdrop to his assertion about "more than 700 scientists" and their contributions "establishing that the Medieval Warm Period was real, was global and was warmer than the present." That's it. Note that no one disgrees that there was a Medieval Warm Period (Monckton's assertions about this constitute a strawman argument), nor that it was likely global (although the proxy data representing this period is very predominantly Northern hemispheric specific, the evidence supports a warm Northern hemisphere with likely a cool Pacific). There is no peer-reviewed published evidence that supports the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was "warmer than the present" (either hemispherically-speaking or globally). So Monckton is misrepresenting the science, the consensus, the scientists involved and the IPCC as well as accusing some of the scientists of lying and the IPCC of cheating, lying and making stuff up. It's worth highlighting this... -
tobyjoyce at 18:48 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
@Passing Wind "Monckton did not interpret their papers, he merely showed graphs those papers contained" Aw, come on. So Monckton just flashes up these graphs and says: "I am not interpreting these, make of them what you like". Like Monckton is a sort of neutral guy, just setting the scene for informed opinion. He may "spin" it that way, but you should watch a Monckton presentation. They are very, very good sales pitches and every slide + commentary is carefully calculated for maximum visual/ aural effect on the reader/ listener. That is partly a compliment. The point is that if Abraham could check with these authors if their work was interpreted properly, then why didn't Monckton? Monckton is concerned with getting the maximum impact out of a chart, not with "science" or "truth". -
Doug Bostrom at 17:51 PM on 7 June 2010Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
Few "umms" or "ahhs" and your thoughts keep up with your mouth, which does not run too fast. You interview well, John. I can't help but note some underlying dramatic tension here. Skeptically Speaking is produced in Alberta, a province up to its ears in tar being enthusiastically liquefied in vast quantities, monetized, shipped south here to the U.S. where we burn it. "They said it couldn't be done", but at $70/barrel the logistical obstacles to creating a mess on this scale turn out not be a problem. Nice that a little of that money is going to programs like this one. -
CoalGeologist at 17:25 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
(With apologies to Shakespeare): "The lord doth protest too much, methinks". (after Hamlet, Act III, Sc. 2) -
Riccardo at 16:40 PM on 7 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
In every counry Governments and Congresses ask scientists or scientific bodies for advices on many issues, it's really common (and good) practice. In the USA Congressmen and Senators invite to testify whoever they like, expert or not they may be. Inviting a prominent scientist to testify on his field of expertise is very appropriate and he is supposed to be there as such, a scientist. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:44 PM on 7 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
As this is a "meta-thread", I think it's ok to point out this interesting article in CSIRO's magazine about the travails of climate blogging, mentioning Skeptical Science: Blogging on climate change – a job for the brave (pdf) Brave as well as preternaturally patient, I'd say.Response: Thanks for the heads up, Doug, that interview was ages ago - I'd forgotten all about it. -
Doug Bostrom at 12:40 PM on 7 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP: Testimonial to a House Committee is an overtly political act. Of course [Ramanathan] can do that as an ordinary citizen, but for that time the role of "scientist" is given up. That's an absurd statement, ridiculous on its face. Ramanathan was -requested- to testify, to provide scientific advice to a House committee, he did not invite himself, did not appear spontaneously in the committee chamber. Should he refuse a request from a House committee chairman to testify? And if he were to do so, what defense would you be prepared to supply him with, when Congress begged to know what was the point of his research? Would you suggest he write back to the committee saying that providing requested scientific advice is an "overtly political act" so he must politely decline? If so, what's the point of his work from the funding perspective? How about when epidemiologists are asked to testify? Is such testimony an overtly political act? I could think of a thousand analogies, find more cases in the long record of scientific assistance to the Senate and House but it's not necessary. And what global environmental issue would you suggest is worse than GHG buildup, other than an out-of-control human population increase and attendant stress on the planet? Ramanathan's remark is in keeping with the assessment of the bulk of the scientific community, so it's hardly a political statement in its fundamentals. Oh, right, I forgot; all theory, calculations and observations tending to demonstrate that there's a problem with GHG emissions are coincidentally wrong, no matter how unlikely that may be. For the curious, here's the summary of the information Ramanathan provided to the House committee: Role of Black Carbon on Global and Regional Climate Change, Testimonial to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform -
Passing Wind at 12:32 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
A. Phillips at 09:36 AM on 7 June, 2010 In just the segment of his takedown on the existence of the MWP, Abraham claims he is going to check Monckton's claims by reading the actual papers cited or asking the authors. Of the 9 graphs Monckton shows on his slide, Abraham tackles less than half of them, 4. Instead of reading and commenting on the contents of the papers, he emails the authors to ask if Monckton correctly interpreted their papers. Monckton did not interpret their papers, he merely showed graphs those papers contained. Did the papers include those graphs as Monckton claims or not. Yes they did. Did even one of the authors contacted say Monckton misrepresented their graphs. No. Not one. Huang did say that his 1997 paper should not have claimed the MWP to be warmer than today, but that's what it did indeed say. Therefore, Monckton did not misrepresent Huang unless Abraham has evidence that Monckton knew Huang had recanted. Furthermore, Huang's current work does not claim there was no MWP, only that it was slightly cooler than today. Abraham seems trying to create a new scholarly method of inquiry. One that ignores what has been published for one that asks the author (or an author's friend) if someone has correctly interpreted their work, or if they have since changed their mind. For more details see this post in the other Monckton thread -
villabolo at 12:23 PM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Lord Monckton (#10) said: "Mr. Abraham, and the president of his university, will shortly be receiving a long letter from me asking him a number of questions about his presentation . . ." "This is the first of many indications of bad faith on Mr. Abraham's part that I shall be drawing to the attention of the authorities at the Bible College where he lectures." I think it is obvious that, from the first sentence in his response, Lord Monckton simply wanted to intimidate Dr. Abraham by stirring trouble for him at his university. He had no intention of communicating anything else to the Dr.. -
Ned at 12:17 PM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Thank you for humoring me, johnd. Let's just continue a little. I think we're approaching some clarity here. By "uncertainty of 50%" it seems you meant "uncertainty of 80 km3, which in 2002-2005 was about 50% of the absolute value of the annual trend". Thus, if for another period the estimate of the change in ice mass was near zero, you would still expect the uncertainty to be plus or minus 80 km3, but centered around 0. Now, presumably, this error model suggests that if the estimated rate of ice loss in 2006-2009 were higher than in 2002-2005, the uncertainty would be less than 50%. Next, we'll want to incorporate Tom Dayton's point that "a sufficiently long time of observations reduces the uncertainty." The 80 km3 figure was based on ~3 years of data. Presumably, the uncertainty will be lower as more years' worth of data are acquired, right? -
Ned at 11:53 AM on 7 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Berényi Péter writes: Worse than that. Testimonial to a House Committee is an overtly political act. Of course he can do that as an ordinary citizen, but for that time the role of "scientist" is given up. I suppose that's one way of looking at it -- a person is only a scientist during the hours when she's in the lab or the field actually doing science. Likewise, I suppose, a person who drives buses for her living would no longer be a bus driver when she's relaxing at home in the evening. Personally, I would be a bit less strict. A bus driver doesn't suddenly become not-a-bus-driver just because she's been asked to provide testimony to a Congressional committee about mass transit, and a scientist doesn't suddenly lose her or his status because the committee asked her or him to come to Washington and answer questions about science. -
johnd at 11:51 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Ned at 11:10 AM, uncertainty has nothing to do with avoiding drawing conclusions, but rather accepting the responsibilities of the physical limitations of being able to measure anything accurately. Those who ignore them are avoiding the reality that perhaps what they attempt to quantify may be far from what they desire, or even preventing them from reaching any conclusion at all, not good if you desperately want to make a case. To answer your thought game, the 1Kg would be 1Kg +/- 80 cubic kilometres as tolerances are generally expressed in absolute terms depending on how they are derived. As I stated earlier the errors were in excess of 50% and this certainly is. That doesn't exactly make your 1Kg very meaningful, or the thought game. Perhaps you would like to offer a different value? -
Ned at 11:23 AM on 7 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP, I mean some combination of reduced but still non-zero fossil fuels, plus a mixture of solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power, biomass, nuclear, and hydro. As discussed in the other thread, I would prefer not to dictate that in 2025 we ought to have x% of our power from nuclear, y% from hydro, etc. I'd much prefer a market-based approach, where a reasonable tax on carbon is coupled with a reduction in subsidies for all other sources. Then, each power source can be used when and where the market decides it's most cost effective. Currently, about half of my electrical supply comes from nuclear, and half from a combination of hydro and renewables. I believe <1% is from oil and natural gas. All that said, however, I admit some bias in favor of distributed power generation (as opposed to highly centralized generation). This is for purely practical reasons. -
Ned at 11:10 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
johnd writes: Perhaps you should ask those who process the data how they handle the range of uncertainty at that exact point. I suspect her answer would not be that the uncertainty is 50% of the measured change. That's why I'm asking you, not her. I have observed that a lot of your comments at this site involve emphasizing the high degree of uncertainty in this or that measurement or conclusion, regardless of the subject. Paying close attention to uncertainty is a good thing ... but there's a difference between paying close attention to uncertainty and using the existence of uncertainty as an all-purpose justification for avoiding the responsibility of drawing conclusions. -
Berényi Péter at 11:00 AM on 7 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#66 Ned at 09:17 AM on 7 June, 2010 developing a productive, satisfying, and low-carbon civilization ASAP You mean nuke, do you? -
Berényi Péter at 10:53 AM on 7 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#64 chris at 04:26 AM on 7 June, 2010 "Dr." or "Professor" Ramanathan rather than "Mr." - he's not a surgeon! Worse than that. Testimonial to a House Committee is an overtly political act. Of course he can do that as an ordinary citizen, but for that time the role of "scientist" is given up. And he is well aware of it. Otherwise he would never utter sentences like "The global build up of greenhouse gases (GHGs), is the most vexing global environmental issue facing the planet" which is both unrelated to the topic at hand and mixes fact with value judgment. Vexing, indeed. And yes, I agree with him air pollution should (and can) be stopped. Not for buying time, but because it's filthy. And I do mean pollution, not breathing out. -
johnd at 10:51 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Ned at 10:40 AM on 7 June, 2010, given that each year there is a period where the mass not only slows the decline but actually increases, there is obviously is a point where a 1Kg decline does actually occur. Perhaps you should ask those who process the data how they handle the range of uncertainty at that exact point. :-) -
Ned at 10:49 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
johnd writes: it is the responsibility of whoever provides the data to make known the tolerances that apply to their measurements. Ah, but the statement "even with GRACE the measurements are subject to errors or uncertainty in excess +/- 50%" was yours, was it not? I'm trying to get at what you mean by that statement. -
ClimateNow at 10:44 AM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
I'm not a scientist but there's no question that the relentless and insidious climate change denial machine has had a significant impact on public opinion about climate change over the past couple years. Public opinion, of course, plays a crucial role in whether governments, industry, organizations and individuals take action or enact legislation to mitigate rising CO2 levels. I know scientists have a lot of important work to do but I think John Abraham's exercise has shown that some effort to combat the deniers can produce spectacular results. I therefore encourage other scientists to write journalists, the media or government representatives when they see blatant misinformation regarding climate science. Given the gravity of the consequences of inaction, we can't afford to let them continue to deliberately confuse the public in an effort to postpone changing our ways. Yes, it's a PR game, and scientists shouldn't have to worry about PR, but we can't afford to lose this battle. The welfare of future generations is at stake. -
johnd at 10:43 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Ned at 10:20 AM on 7 June, 2010, it is the responsibility of whoever provides the data to make known the tolerances that apply to their measurements. It is not something that is always obvious in matters relating to climate change, often considerable digging is required. If always made obvious, the problem that would then "cloud" the debate is that if the range of uncertainty was attached to all data the trends that are so vital to draw conclusions from would often then appear insignificant or non-existent and confuse most people. -
Ned at 10:40 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Another thought experiment, johnd. Suppose global warming suddenly slowed dramatically, and GRACE estimated a decline in mass of only 1 kg next year. Does the "uncertainty of 50%" mean that we know that the actual change in mass was somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 kg across all of Antarctica? -
johnd at 10:32 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Tom Dayton at 09:59 AM, if over time the uncertainty reduces then perhaps the range of uncertainty will be reduced, but the ranges are there for good and solid reasons and it should not be forgotten how they actually relate to the mean. The uncertainties are generally inbuilt and relate to the resolution available from the technology utilised, but also relate to the range that the raw data falls within. For a mean of 152 to be established, some of the raw data gathered would have given values equivalent to 72, and some 232, with most of it all over the place, perhaps none at all being 152 or even close. Even with sophisticated satellite measuring equipment we are still not far advanced from the equivalent of measuring the diameter of a human hair with a wooden ruler, in a manner of speaking. The climate change debate may be different to the commercial world where there is a high degree of awareness about tolerances and the implications when anything subject to meeting specifications will be measured by a number of different parties under supposedly standardised conditions, but the limitations should not be overlooked. -
Gordon1368 at 10:30 AM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
I wonder if Monckton's reference to Prof. Abraham's university as a Bible College is an intentional slight? Would he use the same term to refer to Gonzaga, Notre Dame or Boston College? Somehow I doubt it. I see that kind of response as an indication of his awareness of the weakness of his own argument. -
Passing Wind at 10:25 AM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Opps. Soory, that post got away from me. Let me start again. chris at 03:36 AM on 7 June, 2010 Will you kindly provide a title and reference to the Huang paper as your links eventually point to password protected site. -
Ned at 10:20 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
johnd writes: surely it is obvious, the range of uncertainty always refers to the value it is attached to. Again, it's necessary to be careful. It's now clear that your "uncertainty in excess of plus or minus 50%" refers to 50% of the estimated change in mass. You calculate that from the article's "152 (plus or minus 80)" and sure enough, 80 is slightly more than 50% of 152. So, let's say GRACE estimates a loss of 2500 km3 of ice from Antarctica over the next decade. What is the uncertainty around that? Is it 50% of the 2500? Is it 50% of 152? Or something else? Tom Dayton makes good points as well. But I want to start with something very basic, please. -
Dorothy at 10:13 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
I may have missed it, but looking through all the comments I can't find a link to the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis page at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. The NSIDC graph on the right hand side, updated daily, is interesting to watch, especially this year, when the melt started so late. Now, if the sea ice extent diminishes at its current rate, it could well shrink below that of 2007.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:59 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
I suspect that what Ned was getting at, johnd, is that uncertainty is centered about the mean. Uncertainty does not change our best estimate of the mean, but only our confidence in that best estimate. What is actually the only relevant point is that uncertainty does not change our best estimate of the trend of the mean across time, but only our confidence in that best estimate of the trend. A sufficiently long time of observations reduces the uncertainty. -
johnd at 09:52 AM on 7 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
Ned at 09:27 AM on 7 June, 2010, surely it is obvious, the range of uncertainty always refers to the value it is attached to. Perhaps this information from NASA helps bring some understanding. Quoting from the article:- "The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005." Plus or minus 80 against a nominal value of 152 is 52.63% to be precise. In other words, all that can be said with any confidence is that the ice sheet decreased by something ranging from 72 to 232 cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005, and if you were buying that ice and paid to receive 152 cubic kilometres, the seller could deliver 72 cubic kilometres and there would be absolutely nothing you could do about it. The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:46 AM on 7 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
GC, would you mind telling me what "CAGW" stands for? I've not run into it.Response: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming -
A. Phillips at 09:36 AM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Monckton, "Mr. Abraham here admits that he spent several months working on his presentation attacking me personally in the most venomous terms,..." I wonder if you can give an example of a 'venomous term' in Abraham's presentation. I watched the whole thing, and can't recall anything even mildly venomous. You also ask why Abraham didn't contact you with questions. I wonder how you answer a similar one: why did you not contact the many scientists you cite, to check whether your understanding of their work was correct, before you went ahead and gave lectures on it? -
J Bowers at 09:29 AM on 7 June 2010Abraham reply to Monckton
Monckton:The usual practice in academe is that anyone wishing to rebut another's work notifies that other of his intention and of the rebuttal,..
Did Christopher Monckton ever approach Al Gore for his side to the subject before attempting to debunk the latter's work? They are both, to my knowledge, as formally qualified as each other to make statements on climate science...., with the exceptions that Al Gore took a climate course run by Roger Revelle at Harvard in 1967, and he shares a Nobel Prize specifically related to climate change.
Prev 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 Next
