Recent Comments

Prev  2361  2362  2363  2364  2365  2366  2367  2368  2369  2370  2371  2372  2373  2374  2375  2376  Next

Comments 118401 to 118450:

118401. Marcus at 15:25 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Blessthefall. I can accept *constructive criticism*, but all you give us is a typical anti-intellectual rant about how *bad* scientists are, & how you don't trust them. Yet as someone who works in that area, I can assure you that-in the matter of climate change-the scientists are *far less* biased than the other, truly vested interests in this matter (the fossil fuel industry & its many hangers-on in the mainstream press & political circles). Outside of the Far-Rights weird world of "Scientific Conspiracy Theories", the majority of scientists are people who usually work extremely long hours for very little remuneration. Also, as much as some scientists might have their "pet hypotheses", very few-if any-would be prepared to risk their reputations by clinging to a hypotheses when all the evidence points elsewhere-or be caught deliberately using bad methods to prove their hypothesis correct. Of course, your anti-intellectual views are further highlighted by your opinion that a statement of fact is, in some way, "emotional language". For the record, we are actually experiencing an unprecedented rate of warming-no matter what you might think. What I find laughable is that, though you distrust the motives & results produced by the scientific community, you totally trust the rather pathetic attempts at Green-washing by the oil & coal industries. When they put more money into renewable energy technology than they do into expensive PR campaigns & the payment of anti-AGW lobbyists, then I might believe that they're on the level.
118402. Philippe Chantreau at 15:24 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        These are poor examples, Blessthefall. "Robust", "never before seen" and record heat are not very moving, as far as "emotional language" goes. "Robust" has a precise meaning. It describes a result that withstand cross-examination or is reached through several independent analyses. It is a proper adjective for such a result and carries no particular emotional charge. "Record heat" is appropriate if it applies to a temperature that is the highest on one given record. There is no other way to call it, except with convolutions aimed at lessening the possible significance of it. "Never before seen" is appropriate if it is factual, i.e. nobody ever saw such thing before. For these examples, the emotional charge has to be added; in and by themselves they do not indicate if the "robust" result is a good thing or a bad thing. Nor do they inform us whether the thing that was never before seen is a good thing or a bad thing. The expert for emotional laguage here is Gallopingcamel, who used to shower us with such words as "horrific", "pestilence" or "terrifying." Unlike yours, these are good examples of emotionally charged language.
118403. Doug Bostrom at 15:15 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Actually thoughtful that's pretty thoughtful, heh! A lot of our choices are purely habit; we just need to remember that we have options. It took me about a year or so of fussing online about climate-related problems to pause and consider whether I was doing any walking during all my talking. Before then, ever since it was available we've been paying an extra amount on our utility bill to help fund wind generators being installed by our electric provider but that's not viscerally satisfying in the same way as using some square footage on-scene to capture energy. We've gone for DHW and I'm really satisfied with the results here in a location considered challenging because of poor insolation and cheap hydropower. Assuming we can't practically ditch significant air travel for business until general sanity prevails on avoiding pointless meetings, the next major step is the car. I'm attracted to the upcoming Nissan Leaf because it's simple, appealing to somebody like myself who is repelled by complex hybrid transaxles and the like. The Leaf will shortly be a real option in the growing landscape of modernization described by actually thoughtful. Point of all this is not to blow my horn, rather to chime in with actually thoughtful's point that we need to identify things we can do about our concerns and then act lest we end up rather hollow.
118404. Paul Magnus at 14:57 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        There is sicence in the study of the human condition. A good precidence of what we have with CC is reflected in the Slavery issue. It took a lot of effort to move on to a civilized position on this. And so it will be with GW. Everyone is living a cozy life and the idea that in 90yrs time civilization will have flooded and collapsed is way out of left feild. And you can see why this is so. I follow science quite closely and this issue did not appear on the horizon for me till 2005, when I became concernd about sea level rise coz my house is below sealevel.
118405. actually thoughtful at 14:47 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        @Daisym, I simply disagree with the notion that we don't have solutions now. Watt's very reason for having an electric car and PV panels is so he can say "Even though I don't believe the AGW folks, I am doing as much as anyone and more than most to avoid pollution" (words are mine). So you use either solar thermal or a ground source heat pump for your heating and DHW (pays for itself in less time than you pay for the building - less time than commercial power plants take to reach positive ROI). This covers 75% of your building load (see PV below) You drive an electric car, and you use a grid tied PV system (10kw will power your car and a house, unless your house also contains an electric forge). You are either feeding the grid, or storing energy in your car. Now it isn't perfect. Electric cars have batteries, and batteries don't have a good end game. PV is only a total solution if you use either batteries or grid tied. If everyone is using PV/wind and grid tied then utilities have a storage problem (rumors that only 14% (or any other low number) of energy can come from distributed sources before the grid somehow blows up are completely false - the grid just doesn't care where the electrons come from, and meters at the terminal points). Utilities can solve that storage problem (molten salt, pumping uphill, many other solutions). It is simply a convenient untruth that we don't have the technology. Or that it is "too expensive." We have the solutions (or at least the "buy me a cash-flow positive 30 years" solutions while we get to the next level). We don't have the will. How many posters here use any renewable energy? How many can claim over 50% of their personal energy usage (auto, home electric, home heating/cooling) comes from renewable sources? Apparently the oft vilified Anthony Watts can step up and say "me!" to the above question - can you?
118406. Doug Bostrom at 14:41 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Sorry to butt in, theendisfar, but "robust" has a specific connotation used in scientific speech. Meanwhile, as for "never before seen" or "record setting" and the like, what would you suggest? "Unprecedented", or some clumsy multi-word construct meaning the same thing? Are you suggesting that we should cripple our use of the English language so as to tiptoe around squeamishness? Don't be silly, please.
118407. Doug Bostrom at 14:34 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Theendisfar: You are not going to convince a scientist, well a classical scientist, that your conclusions have any merit until he/she is able to repeat the methods and results. You're simply wrong. Based on my prior experience with other folks making your assertion it's unlikely you're amenable to persuasion, but in any case here's the latest word on what scientists say on our warming climate and man's influence on that climate. That's the National Research Council of the United States under the auspices of the United States National Academy of Sciences, reporting back on a request by the U.S. President Bush. You won't find a more reliable source. If you don't understand the weight this report carries I'm afraid there's really no perfectly kind way of saying you're quite out of your league in making judgments about this topic.
118408. Blessthefall at 14:20 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        @Marcus: Anyone who is familiar with the scientific community knows this: every scientist is biased, it's impossible not to be biased and its impossible to have a "bias-free" scientific community and agendas can vary from person to person. Regarding your oil company comment: DuPont Energy, Cynergy Energy, among many, many others are paid by organizations like Greenpeace to advance "green energy." Most notably, James Hansen receives money from the Heinz Foundation - owned by none other than Congressman John Kerry's wife. Same thing happens on the other side regarding the "deniers." Emotional language such as "robust," "never before seen," and "record heat" or "record" this or that is emotional language and should be eliminated from the scientific literature. And if I've revealed (from my previous post) my "political leanings" please enlighten me and everyone else on my political leanings. Lastly, I can careless if you find my comments insulting: considering you're a "scientist" you should welcome constructive criticism.
118409. Doug Bostrom at 14:13 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Thingadonta, regarding your point #1 the challenge for those harboring the belief that theory and observations regarding climate science are ideologically influenced is that of making a scientific case of how that is so. To do that, they need only demonstrate that those theories and observations are incorrect. That has not happened and daily the chances of that eventuality are growing slimmer, essentially nonexistent at this point if for no other reason than it is implausible that so many researchers in different related disciplines should be able to produce a false but mutually consistent and coherent picture. Blessthefall, I don't agree that Rob's post is inherently political. At a certain point-- for instance when folks still cannot accept climate science's inevitable conclusions based on physics and observations despite statements of acceptance as fact by such as the American National Academy of Sciences in a report produced at the behest of the President of the United States-- the very fact of that resistance to science itself becomes a phenomenon, open to discussion and analysis. It's a legitimate subject of study. Further to shawnhet's points, I believe that when we begin talking of ideological considerations such as the "free market" (no more existent than ever was Communism, by the way) and even more abstract notions such as an imaginary desire to "grow government" as an end in itself, we've quite departed from what we know of the useful relationship between science and human affairs. Quite simply this matter we're discussing is no more ideologically freighted than is the notion of responsible disposal of sewage or any other potentially noxious byproduct of our daily existence.
118410. Marcus at 13:58 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Also @ Daisym. Robhon is dead right-most electric vehicles will tend to be charged when demand for grid electricity is at its absolute lowest. This will have the triple bonus of (a) eliminating the direct CO2 emissions from the burning of petrol & diesel to drive our vehicles-by shunting it to electricity (as the gCO2/100km of an electric vehicle is roughly half that of a petrol powered vehicle of a similar size & make-even from a coal-fired power station),(b) significantly reducing the amount of waste CO2 generated by current off-peak overcapacity & (c) eliminating all of the other directly harmful emissions currently associated with the burning of petrol-such as benzene, carbon monoxide & particulate emissions. Most of the solutions to greenhouse gas emissions have similar flow-on benefits to the environment & economy but-as they'll cut into the profits of the fossil fuel industry-these solutions are strongly resisted.
118411. scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 3 June 2010
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        theendisfar - explain to me how evaporation/convection are relevant to the energy imbalance at TOA please? Some info to help you perhaps at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/ Remember too that "AGW" is really a byproduct of our current theory of climate. You test the theory in conventional ways - use the theory to make predictions; test them against observations from real world. Works pretty well.
118412. Marcus at 13:46 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        theendisfar. If you're going to keep banging on about Convection & Evaporation as being major obstacles to AGW, then it is beholden upon you to provide the EVIDENCE-preferably in the form of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Scientists have spent the better part of a century proving (a) that there is such a thing as a Greenhouse effect & (b) showing what the various positive & negative feedback mechanisms in this effect are. Yet you seem to believe that you can just come along & say "well its simply not true" & have everyone believe you WITHOUT PROOF?!?! That might work in the Denialist Blogosphere, but it doesn't work here. if your pseudo-scientific claims had an ounce of truth behind them, then you'd be able to use them to explain the following observations: (a) that in spite of having a black-body temperature of -18 degrees C, the planet has been around +8 to +15 degrees C for the better part of 80 million years; (b) in spite of the sun being cooler 500 million to 1 billion years ago, the planet was around 6 to 8 degrees *warmer* than in modern times. The main difference back then there was 5 to 10 times more CO2 in our atmosphere; (c) in spite of 30 years of declining sun-spot activity, the planet has warmed at a rate of 0.16 degrees per decade. Now, if all your claims about Convection & Evaporation were correct, then neither (a), (b) nor (c) could hold true. Until you can explain how it can be otherwise, then I must simply dismiss you as another hardened Denialist.
118413. thingadonta at 13:45 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        A few points: 1) It is true that most (not all) of the peer-reviewed scientific papers (in your top right science quadrant in Figure 2) provide evidence for AGW. If the papers are right, then AGW is a concern, and your discussion makes sense. However, most of the 'ideological influencers' in the lower left of Figure 4 don't accept that the general conclusions of the larger body of scientific papers are correct. They generally think the case is far overstated. It's this point of contention that divides and causes most of the problems. The 'influencers' in the lower right believe there is a two-way feedback loop between the 'science', and the 'ideologicial influencers' in the top right of Fig 4, which is distorting the data. They don't believe that the scientific community is dispassionately looking at the data. They have a fatailistic perspective of human nature, that implies that it is very easy for the hard 'science' to become distorted, biased and essentially hijacked by political agendas of both the lower left, and top right, of your Fig 4. 2) Most of your discussion assumes the science is settled and irrefutable, and therfore the skeptical position on AGW is largely irrational. You imply that it is as settled as evolution or continental drift. However neither evolution, nor continental drift, make high certainty forecasts or projections based on variable rates of change, wheares climate scientists do, presumably because, unlike evolution of continental drift, one scenario could cause major problems for humanity. Ask any biologist and he will tell you one can't know which way evolution will proceed in the future, neither will a volcanologist/geologist on longer time scales. (EG Some complex subduction zones can reverse in direction, stall, or stop). 3) You discussion is very opinionated, or what you refer to as 'biased'. You are right. For xample, you start talking about cheaper energy and domestic jobs etc when these sort of projections are in themselves highly controversial, even if the science is correct. You dont even bother to mention that these issues are also debatable. Once again, you assume that this issue is 'settled'. Many on both sides think that energy will become more expensive, and domestic employment and the general economy weaker, if various AGW policies are implemented. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. You can't get any more energy out of something/process than is in it. It is one of the few, rock hard, unchangeable realities of life. Most 'alternative energies' currently produce less reliable, less efficient, lower output, less transportabe, more expensive energy than eg fossil fuels; and because of the rock hard fact given above, for most alternative energies, this may never change, regardless of human ingenuity and new technologies.
118414. ubrew12 at 13:34 PM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        CoalGeologist at 09:44 AM on 2 June said: "Anyone who has heard Monckton speak will know that he's not a stupid man, yet he says things that have no scientific foundation. He must have seen the same data as are reported here, yet chooses to misrepresent it. The question is why does he do it?" At the risk of being unscientific (and thus rejected), I must say I think this is a critically important question. Why are intelligent people rejecting GW science out of hand? Increasingly, it clearly is not about the science. If you've heard Monckton speak when the subject turns to economics, I think you'll have your answer. The passion is for a healthy free-market capitalism; they see themselves as the defenders of economic freedom in a world beset by collectivist thought. Even making the economic argument that Paul Krugman makes in a recent editorial, that GW remediation is expected to cost only half of what nonremediation is likely to cost, in the 21st century, doesn't register for people like Monckton. I believe that for him there is a fundamental tenet of individual freedom at risk here, and people who think likewise are his best audience. Somehow, the debate on GW needs to begin to address these apparently real fears of economic collectivism. Especially here in America too many people hold such fears. There's a common-sense saying 'united we stand, divided we fall'. For people like Monckton, this saying is exactly backwards as regards economic decisionmaking. For them, the prospect of people uniting against a common threat, like GW, heralds the end of society. I wish I understood better where such extraordinary fear comes from, but its a powerful motivator. In service to the 'greater good' of combating collectivism, it literally doesn't care how strong the scientific case for GW can be made, and is certainly not above fudging data to combat it. It really is fighting a crusade, of some kind. And, unfortunately for us, it's often winning that crusade. Its not winning the science debate, but its winning the policy debate.
118415. theendisfar at 13:32 PM on 3 June 2010
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        To understand the warming you must also understand the cooling. Radiation emissions are a result of the planet cooling. Convection is also a result of the planet cooling. Lastly evaporation is a result of the surface cooling. Since convection is is more efficient at cooling than radiation, any increase in surface temp will create a greater increase in convection than radiation. Since convection is not impeded by anything other than less dense air above the convection column, convection will remain the most efficient means to cool the surface up to the tropopause. Even without evaporation, any trapped radiation will simply be transfered to the tropopause via convection. The greater the trapped radiation, the greater the convection rate. How are these givens accounted for in the AGW model?
118416. chris1204 at 13:20 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        As a psychiatrist, I get to see a fair bit of denial. I've also learnt not to typecast people. I know devout born again Christians who have enormous concern for the environment and vote for the Greens, atheists who don't believe in AGW and vote conservatively, physicists who belive fervently in homeopathy, and so the list goes on.
118417. theendisfar at 13:10 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        shawnhet, How about leading us to a well defined definition of AGW that we can test? There were plenty of Relativity 'Deniers' until Edmonton provided proof to a WELL WRITTEN and DEFINED THEORY that could be tested. You are not going to convince a scientist, well a classical scientist, that your conclusions have any merit until he/she is able to repeat the methods and results. As for name calling "Sticks & stones". Both sides need to grow up. Convection and Evaporation are two major obstacles for AGW. Until you have satisfied the falsification that they counter (negative feedback) the effects of a warming surface, you will not convince anyone of anything. Especially since there is no actual Theory to test.
118418. Doug Bostrom at 13:05 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Shawnhet, I'll offer that your use of the phrase "AGW supporters" arguably reveals that to you this is all a game or competition of some kind. It might be possible to sell conservatives on the idea of a carbon tax, if it were revenue neutral(all taxes raised would be offset by tax cuts elsewhere). That's been offered, rejected. As an exercise, try looking it up. Any other ideas?
118419. shawnhet at 12:56 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Loath as I am to get involved in these sorts of political arguments, I will add my 2 cents here. From a political standpoint, (C)AGW is a liberal issue - it argues for bigger government. Thus, liberals tend to support the theory and conservatives tend to oppose it on that grounds. The majority of the politically motivated *on either side* tend not to be too concerned over the state of the science, simply choosing to use it as convenient to further their other goals. If AGW supporters wanted to win over the conservative political opposition, all they would have to do would be to show how to effectively combat AGW without markedly increasing the size of government. It might be possible to sell conservatives on the idea of a carbon tax, if it were revenue neutral(all taxes raised would be offset by tax cuts elsewhere). It would definitely be an easier sell. Ironically, I think that if they could do this sort of thing, AGW supporters would end up losing a great deal of the support of their base. Further, may I say that if you are really hoping to convince someone that what you say is accurate, you need to be pretty careful what you call them. Calling someone a denier is practically guaranteed to lose you any credibility you may have had with that person, especially if they think that they have a reasonable position. Cheers, :)
118420. chris1204 at 12:49 PM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        dhogaza @ 26 Your comment about the much lengthier NSIDC measures is valid. However, the point I'm making is that we still don't have a gold standard way of measuring what the ice is doing. Consequently, different algorithms give divergent results. We don't know what the trend would have been had the JAXA algorithm been available thirty years ago. I assume the likely answer would be 'more extensive ice' but in reality we don't know. This highlights the problems that arise from metaanalysis - we don't know whether we are comparing like with like even when we are attempting to measure the same variable. Humanity Rules @ 34 Thanks for the tip - I'll splurge :)
118421. Doug Bostrom at 12:27 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Rob, I forgot to mention I really enjoyed this article. I've spent a lot of time pondering the taxonomy of this whole affair and your graphical perspectives are great for helping to think about it. Any chance of making your diagrams into links to larger versions for us in the 50+ failing optical body parts demographic?
        Response: Done, the last 4 pics link to larger versions.
        
118422. Bern at 12:19 PM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        An interesting read there, Rob, thanks for that. I think you're right, coming up with solutions that are better than the things we have that cause the problem will be how to fix it. Daisym does have a point, though - the fossil fuel industries are worth $billions every year in government revenue, and exert enormous political pressure due to providing employment for many people (and political donations, of course). We see that here in Australia, particularly in regard to the coal industry, where enormous sums have been promised to investigate "clean coal" technologies that are decades off, at best, while all but ignoring "ready to build right now" alternatives.
118423. Rob Honeycutt at 11:47 AM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        @daisym... Actually, it's my understanding that, if everyone bought electric cars as Anthony Watts did, it could help the grid out quite a bit. Right now part of the problem is that we have such large peak demand during the day. At night many plants operate in a spin state where they could be generating electricity if there was any demand. Electric cars would be charged at night and take advantage of this off peak spin. It's not a perfect scenario but better than what we do now. There are some studies that show that current capacity could charge the entire nation of personal vehicles. And in states like California where less of our electricity is produced through coal then it's a win-win scenario. But overall I think this misses the point I'm trying to make which is, it's coming up with solutions to our nations' energy problems that are going to erase the gulf between climate deniers and believers.
118424. Daved Green at 11:46 AM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Very interesting post robhon , from my experience the man in the street denier is worried about losing thier "stuff" and its easy for the right wingers to play on this and tell them what they want to hear show them some nice graphs and its all "nothing to see here move on " is one of their favorite sayings . Rational People would like to use less energy but when they look at the set up costs (solar pV panels electric car ) or even just the extra time it takes to get the bus or train to work instead , a economic rationalism kicks in and they look for reasin to put it off and so in come peopl like Monckton .
118425. Doug Bostrom at 11:37 AM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Rhetorical Question: Hasn't the government patiently thrown $100 billion over the past 20 years to identify the problem posed upon the planet by fossil fuel emissions? Reality Answer: No. Some interesting ideas in that post but overall way too much hyperbole and ideological trimmings.
118426. daisym at 11:32 AM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        If everyone bought an electric car, as did Anthony Watts, the grid would be quickly overwhelmed. We would have to build fossil fuel electrical generating plants to provide additional capacity, as well as transmission facilities to carry the additional load. The increased capacity must be huge. The notion of any resulting net reduction in fossil fuel emissions is dubious at best. These electric cars must therefore rely on continued burning of fossil fuels to support them. Nuclear power generating plants are generally feared and not seemingly acceptable, at least at present. The obvious solution is to develop an affordable, 24/7 alternative energy source (non-nuclear) to the trusty fossil fuel. How far along are we in this search for the Holy Grail of alternative energy? The answer: Nowhere. Why? Hasn't the government patiently thrown $100 billion over the past 20 years to identify the problem posed upon the planet by fossil fuel emissions? Hasn’t the government declared that it’s time to act to save the planet from climate calamity? As I see it, the government could begin a crash R&D effort to develop the needed alternative, similar to the so-called Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb during WWII. President Obama could declare to be a National goal to find the affordable 24/7 alternative energy that we need to remove our economic and societal dependency on fossil fuels by, say, the year 2020. President Kennedy made such a proclamation in 1961 to put a man on the moon, and he did it. And he only wanted to one-up the Russians… there was no looming crisis. But President Obama has not done this. In truth, the government will not do this, doesn’t want to do this, and doesn’t want you or me or anyone else to do this. The government hasn’t even given us a coherent National energy policy. Bolstered by 20 years and $100 billion in climate research, the government has become emboldened, ironically, on perpetuating our dependence on fossil fuels. It has supported the creation of biofuels which can only hope to distill enough alcohol fuel energy to replace the fossil fuel energy that creates it. Of course, the price of corn has gone up in the process. The government has supported construction of windmills and solar panels, but these cannot be installed in sufficient quantity to come close to replacing fossil fuel power, even at high noon on a sunny, windy day. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind is just as fickle. These technologies still rely on fossil fuels for reliable, 24/7 heavy lifting for power generation. But a lot of money is being made by the large, politically connected corporations that build them. The government is desperately trying to pass a Cap and Trade law which will require all users of fossil fuels to pay for the privilege of continuing their use, or somehow force them to switch to an alternative energy source that doesn’t exist. The government knows that we have no alternative to fossil fuels. This carbon derivatives trading scheme has been estimated to be a $10 trillion per year operation. Once it gets going, the Green Industry will become institutionalized and will never go away. Despite proclamations of harmful manmade climate change from burning fossil fuels, the government is creating this new Green Industry, an industry which will be Too Big To Fail. Development of a 24/7 alternative energy source will mean no more need for oil, gas, coal, windmills, solar panels and Ethanol. And it will destroy the $10 trillion per year carbon derivatives trading market. Development/discovery of the needed alternative energy source will collapse the world economy. It matters little whether or not fossil fuels will cause a global climate calamity. The government has created a scenario whereby they tax us in some form for continued use of fossil fuels. In the final analysis, the government’s $100 billion spent on climate research was an investment in a future world where a few get richer while the rest of us get poorer. Are you sure you’re still in favor of Cap and Trade becoming law? Are you really sure that manmade fossil fuel emissions are the problem?
118427. Chemware at 10:54 AM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        The question of "Why do deniers deny ?" is one that puzzles most of us here. While the denial of some (eg: mining companies, electricity companies, big oil, and their shareholders) is understandable from an economic point of view, that of apparently rational people is difficult to comprehend. New Scientist has an excellent series of articles on this at: www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial My own personal experience is that you can show a denier all the papers and graphs you want, and he won't budge an inch. However, tell him about your personal experience, such as "Geez, I remember when there was 3 m of snow at Perisher when I was young and we skied off the balcony", and you'll get back "Yeah, the snow used to be really great, but these days it's crap". They only seem to respond to direct personal experience.
118428. yocta at 10:51 AM on 3 June 2010
        Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?
        Good post robhon! It is a good model you present and will be sure to stimulate discussion. RE# 1 robhon most likely said only CO2 in this statement as it is in the context that the reader would understand that the issue with global warming is about CO2. John has links on his site to the relevant topics that discuss what you are speaking about. I suggest commenting about it here CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Also, in order for any educational discussion to take place you need to present peer reviewed studies that actually support your skeptical claims. I will remain completely skeptical of your skepticism unless you present evidence.
118429. HumanityRules at 10:07 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        15.chriscanaris I've read that paper, I'd recommend a look.It makes some interesting observations about the state of the ice, speculastes on what may have occured in the 2008 season and of course presents some thickness data for 2007 and 2009. It's general conclusion is that ice thickness has slightly increased between 2007 and 2009. They add that this is within the range of natural variability, I wonder given the pausity of ice thickness data how you quantify such a thing. Anyway apart from that it's a very interesting read. Pro-AGW, but I have to say one that doesn't let the need for headlines get in the way of the science. 24.CBDunkerson at 23:48 PM on 2 June, 2010 So you favour an idea that the 1930-40's weren't a warm period. That there wasn't some exceptional ice melt in that period and that the Arctic wasn't warm? I thought it's been established that the 1930-40s were a period of relative global warmth I don't see why the Arctic should be excluded from that. All older records are by their nature fragmentary. It would be hard to argue that the complete temperature record was truely global before recent decades (think about the oceans). Always we work with what we have. And what we have suggests that there were periods of considerable Arctic ice melt. Don't ignore this, put it into a workable AGW theory.
118430. johnd at 08:41 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        Riccardo at 07:58 AM, whilst the link between Arctic Ocean circulation and AO detected by NASA was reported just over 2 years ago, I am not as confident as you appear to be, that all that there is to learn on how the link relates with all other factors under all circumstances, has in fact been learnt. It is more likely that the understanding has barely started. Salinity is obviously a very important factor in understanding ice formation, not only for the present or the future, but for understanding past cycles. As is noted in the article, "the results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming", is perhaps something to keep in mind.
118431. Riccardo at 07:58 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        One of the good things of this site is that people can learn. Apparently the last successful lesson was on the Artic Oscillation impact on Arctic climate; i guess next one will be that scientists didn't discovered it today nor yesterday. And second next that they did take it into account and it does not explain current melting.
118432. cloneof at 07:24 AM on 3 June 2010
        Models are unreliable
        Riccardo: Oh really? Sweet, got to see that when it get's published. Thanks for the link, even though I'm a few weeks late.
118433. johnd at 07:20 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        This article "NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face" (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131) and "Arctic Oscillation (AO) time series, 1899 - June 2002" (http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/) may provide some historical perspective for the Arkadiusz posts
118434. GFW at 05:24 AM on 3 June 2010
        Update of Visualisations of Carbon Dioxide
        That first animation is phenomenal. What an amazing way to present data of such a wide range of measurement-density, timescale, and value. It's utterly compelling. Oh yeah, the final result looks a bit like a hockey stick :-)
118435. Doug Bostrom at 05:08 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        Amending my previous comment, it's actually "doubt" as opposed to "uncertainty" that is promoted by Monckton, Luntz et al. It's not surprising Luntz should carelessly substitute one term for the other; despite all the references to science in Luntz's memo the focus is not at all on science, it's on public optics.
118436. chris at 04:40 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June, 2010 Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June, 2010 We should be a little more careful with the scientific literature. Looking at the paper that Arkadiusz excerpts from (Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005) [*]) reinforces CBDunkerson's point, namely that the primary source of warming has been the persistent warming trend over the 20th century. [n.b. it’s also worth reading the last sentence of the abstract which Arkadiusz omitted from his excerpt-click on my link]. Polyakov et al (2005) explicitly highlight this background warming trend. If you look at their Figure 3, the Figure legend states:

        "Long-term variability of temperature of the intermediate AW of the Arctic Ocean. Prolonged warm (red shade) and cold (blue shade) periods associated with phases of multi-decadal variability and a background warming trend are apparent from the record of 6-year running mean normalized AW temperature anomalies (dashed segments represent gaps in the record)."

        Also one can't really conclude that (concerning current warming) "the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago" from Arkadiusz papers. If we take the paper he excerpted from, we would conclude the opposite. Polyakov et al (2005)’s Figure 3 indicates that the current warming period has taken Arctic temperatures higher than in the early 20th century, and the more general evidence for that is strong. In any case, despite the limited direct measures of Arctic temperatures/sea ice extent etc. from ~100 years ago, we do have independent evidence that the warming from that period was considerably less significant compared to current Arctic warming since Arctic land ice melt produces a worldwide sea level signal; the rather slow rates of sea level rise in the early parts of the 20th century compared to current rates of rise is rather strong evidence for an absence of major persistent Arctic warming in the earlier period that matches the current period. It’s also worth pointing out that the early 20th century Arctic warming likely had a strong, and perhaps dominant influence from the effects of volcanic aerosols to which the Greenland ice sheet temperatures, in particular, seem particularly vulnerable (volcanic aerosols strongly cool these). So the evidence supports the interpretation that late 19th century, early 20th century strong volcanic activity knocked back temperatures and suppressed small solar and greenhouse-forced temperature rise in the Arctic during this period. Much of the enhanced warming from 1910/1915 (which likely was rapid) was probably a recovery from this volcanic-induced temperature suppression of accumulated solar and greenhouse-forcings which were “unleashed” rather quickly (see e.g. Box et al. (2009) [**]). A concern with respect to current Arctic warming (especially in the case of Greenland) is that Greenland warming is expected to be “in phase” with Northern Hemisphere warming, and although it has warmed considerably during the last 20-odd years (and started to release rather significant meltwater), it hasn’t recovered this phase relationship following the temperature statis during the mid-20th century. So [see Box et al. (2009) link just above] we may have some 1-1.5 oC of warming “catch up” to come. Clearly the situation in the Arctic now is very different indeed from the situation in the early 20th century. [*]Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005), One more step toward a warmer Arctic Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L17605. [**] Box, J. E. et al. (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007 J. Climate 22, 4029-4049.
118437. Doug Bostrom at 03:43 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        I believe Monckton's most effective part in this drama is his ability to highlight and maintain uncertainty. Regarding uncertainties and the role they play in formulating coherent and useful policy response to AGW, it's interesting to read what the U.S. GOP pollster and thought-leader Frank Luntz wrote about the crucial role of uncertainty in public discussion of climate science. Luntz: Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate... Entire Luntz memo, influential, with eerily familiar tone and content, breathtakingly cynical: THE ENVIRONMENT: A CLEANER SAFER, HEALTHIER AMERICA I think this key issue of promoting and maintaining a sense of uncertainty is why the IPCC has been the subject of concentrated attack by Monckton and others. As Luntz noted prior to IPCC's 2007 report, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." The IPCC reports represent that window, which has closed still further since Luntz wrote his memo. Whether promoters of uncertainty will be able to withstand what's becoming an overwhelming flood of similar messages (recent NRC report, for instance) is an open question.
118438. tobyjoyce at 03:14 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        John Russell, I relate to what you say. Monckton's plummy voice is probably a selling point for much of the globe because they link it with honesty and probity. However, to an Irishman or a Scotsman, he is at a definite discount!
118439. dhogaza at 02:58 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        

        I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science.

        NSIDC and JAXA agree closely in trend. They use different running averages (5 vs. 2 day) and of course a different algorithm processing data from different sensors. The biggest difference of course is that the NSIDC data goes back over thirty years, and JAXA less than a decade. So your daily tea-leaf reading of their graphic output might lead you to think that JAXA supports the notion that things are "almost average" while the longer-term data shown by NSIDC makes it clear that it's not. Greater than two sigmas down from the 1979-2000 baseline (JAXA first year is 2002) and diverging rapidly.
118440. chris1204 at 01:47 AM on 3 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        CBDunkerson @ 21 I don't make a big deal out of things being average - I'm merely pointing citing the site quoted in the post which reads as, well, average. Moreover, IARC JAXA tracks the ice level today as being exactly at 2006 levels which was followed by what turned into the second largest sea ice extent in the data presented only to be followed by the 2007 plummet. I don't want to cherry pick so all I would say is that the divergences in the data set from the NSIDC graph illustrates the uncertainties in the science. kdkd @ 19 Thanks for the reference. I'll have a peek behind the pay wall. As a doctor, I have a fair bit of experience with tipping points - eventually, we all confront a humongous tipping called death. At a less dramatic level, the transition from a mild to severe illness or from being a person at risk to a very sick person is often retrospectively easy to track. However, keeping people (and a human being is the epitome of a complex system) healthy is another story involving risk management decisions and my experience suggests we don't do it well. I note the abstract says as much.
118441. CBDunkerson at 23:48 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        Arkadiusz and Ken, a novel approach... as it is clear that the Arctic sea ice is melting now insist that it isn't due to global warming. The problem is that the 'evidence' of this isn't strong at all. You're talking about fragmentary records from a century ago. Nobody was doing surveys of the entire Arctic back then. You can't say that because Spitsbergen experienced a warm period (similar to the recent trend) that this means the entire Arctic basin did. At that we don't have any accurate >ice< data for that time period... ok, ice around Spitsbergen retreated. How much exactly? How widespread was this ice retreat? It is pure guesswork. As to the current warming being all down to the ocean rather than CO2... the ocean is warmer BECAUSE of CO2, ergo ocean driven warming IS CO2 warming.
118442. Ken Lambert at 23:37 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        Arkadiusz Semczyszak #22 Seems like AS has cited some pretty strong evidence that while the Arctic has warmed - the warming is not as strong as 90 years ago. The most likely global cause 90 years ago was Solar variation and local cyclical warming currents like the AMO.
118443. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        @CBDunkerson arctic-warming. 26th June 2009: "The starting point is the extreme warming at Spitsbergen in winter 1918/19. The winter temperatures exploded (see Fig. above- http://www.arctic-warming.com/hottopics/20090626/20090626_clip_image002.jpg) only here. The warming was sustained and remained for two decades, showing up in the Kara Sea and eastwards only after 1920. That is an evident aspect that the warming started at Spitsbergen. When Syun-Ichi Akasofu [2009] recently acknowledged that: "The recent rapid retreat of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, particularly in 2007, is partly caused by the inflow of warm North Atlantic (Karcher et al., 2003; Polyakov, 2006)", it would be the same situation as during the Arctic warming 90 years ago. An earlier paper by Polyakov et al., [2005], expressed it in this way: "This study was motivated by a strong warming signal seen in mooring-based and oceanographic survey data collected in 2004 in the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean. The source of this and earlier Arctic Ocean changes lies in interactions between polar and sub-polar basins. Evidence suggests such changes are abrupt, or pulse-like, taking the form of propagating anomalies that can be traced to higher-latitudes. For example, an anomaly found in 2004 in the eastern Eurasian Basin took 1.5 years to propagate from the Norwegian Sea to the Fram Strait region, and additional 4.5–5 years to reach the Laptev Sea slope." Many scientists have shown that the current rapid warming of the Arctic is not much "room" for CO2. For me, the most interesting works are: - Piechura, Walczowski (2009) Warming of the West Spitsbergen Current and sea ice north of Svalbard , - Alekseev et al. (2007) Arctic Sea Ice Data Sets in the Context of Climate Change During the 20th Century, - Chylek et al. (2009), Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
118444. CBDunkerson at 20:52 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        chriscanaris #12, I still can't fathom why 'skeptics' make such a big deal out of ice extent briefly approaching AVERAGE. The mere fact that 'almost hitting average' is such a big deal serves as a tacit admission that ice extent has been BELOW average continuously for years now. In any remotely 'level' system you'd see values going ABOVE average on a regular basis... rather than merely getting CLOSE to average being a rare and noteworthy event. BTW, that report is also a month old. Since then Arctic sea ice extent has plummeted at an unprecedented rate and is now below the level for this time of year in 2007. They should have a new monthly report out by next week, but you can see the current status HERE.
118445. Alexandre at 20:35 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        John Russel #16 Totally agree. Here in Brazil there´s a nearly-retired meteorologist that has made some late fame among the broader public by making contrarian statements in interviews and right-wing Economy and business conferences. Except for the accent, the tactics are much the same.
118446. kdkd at 19:16 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        chriscanaris #12 A paper from Nature demonstrates how perturbations in these complex periodic systems are important. In that context, the jury seems may be still out on the Arctic ice extent, but very close to a verdict. Full reference: Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W.A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S.R., Dakos, V. et al. (2009) Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461, 53-59.
118447. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:12 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        1.565 ppm - sorry
118448. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:09 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        Also, I think about the Arctic ice experts - should speak out, others can only cite them, but ... "Unprecedented" ... Monckton is not a scientist about "the ice" ... but ... ... Polish professor Marsz all his long "scientific" life deal with the Arctic ice (recently also Antarctic). March of the first explains: "The correlation coefficient between the average annual surface ice (extent), and the value AMOMSar a year is equal to -0.80 (p <0.00001, 1979-2008). The strongest relationship between the value AMO MSar last year [2008] and the average monthly surface ice occur during the period from December to June - during the polar night, and spring (r from -0.82 to -0.74). The higher the value AMO MSar (ie, the Sargasso Sea SST), including in all months of next year in the Arctic ice surface is smaller." ... and then says the following: "The air temperature in the northern hemisphere has increased over this period (1979-2003, 25 years) to 0.73 ° C, which gives, also lower than in the previous period, [1917-1938 (22 years)] average increase of 0.0292 ° C • year -1. At the same time the growth rate of CO2 concentration was equal to 1565 ppm • year-1 (P <0.00001), almost four times higher than in the previous period of warming, and the same concentration of CO2 in the troposphere was also significantly higher than in the previous period and ranged are between 337 and 375 ppmv." "In the second period of warming (the current), despite the much higher concentration of CO2 in the troposphere (about 27-65 ppmv) than in the previous period, and a much stronger trend in the concentration of CO2, the rate of temperature rise in the northern hemisphere is smaller than during the first warming. If the concentration of CO2 govern the SAT changes, it should probably be different [...]. Presumably, increased concentrations of CO2 have some impact on the course of air temperature in recent years, however, in relation to the role played in shaping the changes in the SAT - scale NH [including the impact on Arctic ice], play AMO changes, the effect of the pCO2 is secondary, and perhaps even TERTIARY." Monckton is wrong (in principle) in detail, but his general conclusions that: the ice there is "nothing special" and even more so "UNPRECEDENTED" (for example, it was a "precedent" - by Marsz - in the years 1917 to 1938) may be the most consistent with the views of (at least) some researchers - Arctic sea research.
118449. John Russell at 18:56 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        I've spent some time in the past refuting some of Monckton's lectures and posting the results to various groups. I'm no scientist, but then neither is Monckton so it's not difficult to find what he's done in support of his deliberate campaign of misinformation. As a writer and director of films -- a role that also extends to producing visuals for conferences and presentations, I understand what he's doing. There are a couple of observations worth making. 1) Monckton, like many other anti-climate change lobbyists, specifically targets an audience that has limited scientific understanding of the subject. He knows the argument is not about science, it's about PR; about creating a groundswell of public opinion. 2) Monckton is not interested in addressing the counter-arguments of his more scientifically literate critics (like the people who frequent SkSc, I guess). His work is done long before we pull it apart. 3) Monckton -- for the sake of clarity he would say -- redraws ALL the graphs he uses in his presentations. He almost invariably changes the scale or truncates the timeline, or uses other tricks to change the essential message of the graph. Graph one of John's article is a perfect example of this. By concentrating on seasonal change and thus exaggerating the much more subtle annual variations in sea ice extent, he's able to give the impression to his specifically-targeted audience that all's tickety-boo. 4) If you look at a video of any of his lectures (there are plenty to find on Youtube) you'll note that he uses graphs and illustrations in rapid succession, just giving an impression and not allowing the audience to either study or think in any detail about the graph he's presented. 5) It's a well known fact in presentation that the words being spoken should follow closely any words being shown on screen. The human brain cannot read one set of words and listen to another at the same time. One either listens or reads. Monckton knows this and by talking rapidly and authoritatively he ensures the audience cannot analyse his graph. The only time the on-screen words and his voice coincide is when he reads the title at the top; in this case, "Arctic sea ice just fine... etc." One is just left with an impression. It's no accident that the titles of his graphs are the spoken word, rather than the more formal descriptive text a scientist would use. 6) He often leaves off the information one needs to authenticate the graph. He'll use enough to meet his purpose of providing credibility; not enough information for someone to be able to check out the original quickly. 7) He's a good presenter. He knows his upper-class English voice works well, particularly with people from the colonies (if you'll excuse the expression) -- which is probably why he does so many tours abroad. We working-class Brits hear it for what it is (I'll not say what, for fear of being moderated). To sum up. Anyone attending a Monckton lecture is being manipulated with great skill. Throughout history there have been other great orators who did this. 'Nough said. Hope that helps.
118450. chris1204 at 18:40 PM on 2 June 2010
        Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice
        From: Christian Haas, Stefan Hendricks, Andreas Herber: Synoptic airborne thickness surveys reveal state of Arctic sea ice cover GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09501, 5 PP., 2010 While summer Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased over the past three decades, it is subject to large interannual and regional variations. Methodological challenges in measuring ice thickness continue to hamper our understanding of the response of the ice-thickness distribution to recent change, limiting the ability to forecast sea-ice change over the next decade. We present results from a 2400 km long pan-Arctic airborne electromagnetic (EM) ice thickness survey in April 2009, the first-ever large-scale EM thickness dataset obtained by fixed-wing aircraft over key regions of old ice in the Arctic Ocean between Svalbard and Alaska. The data provide detailed insight into ice thickness distributions characteristic for the different regions. Comparison with previous EM surveys shows that modal thicknesses of old ice had changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability. I haven't splurged out to go beyond the abstract. It's just another random paper which leaves me thinking that the jury's still out. My main reservation about some of the fascinating and informative scientific argument on this site lies in the assumption that lots of trends pointing in the same direction suggest a robust conclusion (effectively metaanalysis). Metaanalysis has numerous limitations and can obscure as much as it can illuminate (for example, comparing apples and oranges). Equally, I have very little time for the Monckton/ Plimer modus operandi (the former claiming authority and expertise which is manifestly lacking while the latter being less than rigorous in his referencing to say the least) which equally oversimplify to the point of making sensible discussion impossible.

Prev  2361  2362  2363  2364  2365  2366  2367  2368  2369  2370  2371  2372  2373  2374  2375  2376  Next