Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 Next
Comments 125001 to 125050:
-
angliss at 03:30 AM on 28 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
American Thinker also regularly proves that their climate/science writers are dumb as stumps when it comes to actual science. I've lost count of the number of times that they talk about Mars' climate as if it has some bearing on the Earth's climate, especially when they say "Mars is warming, so that explains global warming here on Earth" in the same post as they say "the Earth's cooling trend is driven by the sun." Both statements cannot be true. -
Tom Dayton at 03:30 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
sbarron2000, any error is variation around the mean. The mean is unaffected. Averaging lets those variations cancel each other out--averaging across stations at the same time, and averaging across times (e.g., averaging all the daily measurements to produce a monthly mean, averaging the monthly means to produce a yearly mean). That's what statistics is about. Basic statistics. High school level. Not the least bit debatable. -
Ubique at 03:23 AM on 28 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Fascinating stuff thank you - but still only one variable in the the overall equation I would suggest. -
sbarron2000 at 03:17 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Tom, Aren't we actually saying "the asphalt instrument reads 55 degrees F (+/- 2.5 degrees C for a type 5 station), and the distant instrument reads 50 degrees F (+/-0.5 degrees C, for a type 2 station)? And "Tuesday the overall air temperature in that local area is two degrees higher than it was Monday. So the asphalt instrument reads 57 degrees (+/- 2.5 degrees C for a type 5 station) degrees and the remote instrument reads 52 degrees (+/-0.5 degrees C, for a type 2 station)? Given that degree of error, can we be certain we can draw meaningful conclusions from the "consistent" 2 degree temperature difference found over those 2 days at these two sites? I'm not sure that repeating this process several hundred times, then averaging the results with similar stations creates any more meaningful info than can be had on day-to-day basis. I have not read all of Menne 2010, so maybe they address this. But so far, no one else has. -
jpark at 03:07 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Not really, Ned but thanks. I agree about the andecdotal evidence, I see the argument in Menne et al and appreciate it but - and I apologise for the repetition because it must be boring to read - if that is the best argument for countering Watts paper then Watts 'wins'. It may be ancedotal but it looks more real than all the trends of Menne et al. Might be an illusion, I dont know, that's why I was hoping I would find more here - that's it really. -
Ned at 02:57 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
jpark writes: "There is too much out there saying the data has been fixed and too little documentation and rebuttal of the charges." You have that exactly backwards. Watts only offers anecdotal evidence (look at this photograph!) and forceful assertions (the data are garbage!) But he refuses to actually do any quantitative evaluation of the trends. The paper discussed in this thread provides a study that was specifically designed to test Watts's claims. As it turns out, those claims are wrong. The impact of individual station siting on the temperature trend is minimal, what impact there is is mostly compensated for by the analytical process ... and insofar as poorly sited stations have a bias, they tend to be too warm in the early years and too cool in more recent years, which means they are underestimating the warming trend. I hope this helps. -
jpark at 02:51 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Tom, true. But you lost the voter right there. 2 degrees 5 degrees, what the heck, who cares. Oh, ok then, I wont bother! (Only playing devils advocate there - not trying to be rude!) -
Tom Dayton at 02:48 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Sorry, my first sentence in my previous comment was supposed to be "It makes no difference to the change across time." (I was writing my two comments in parallel and copy-pasted wrong.) -
Hoskibui at 02:48 AM on 28 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
I get it now - cheers, should have checked the link. I thought the part from 1611-1880 was from another source. -
jpark at 02:47 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
this was good tho' http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/be-alert-but-wary-on-climate-claims-20100126-mw7z.html -
Berényi Péter at 02:47 AM on 28 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
doug, scientists are for doing science, not politics. These guys missed this subtle point, so they deserve their fate. Otherwise if carbon dioxide were in fact a problem, all this talk about renewable energy is crap. There is not nearly enough to cover the needs of economy. BTW, according to the principle of cui bono, it must be the nuclear lobby that lurkes in the background. For at the moment nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to burning carbon compounds and it makes no carbon dioxide at all. Hydrocarbon industry comes as a second bet, as coal produces twice as much CO2 than oil or methane for the same energy output. Oherwise energy is NOT a limited resource. We have this huge fusion power plant nearby. At its surface the EM radiation power flux is 63 MW/m^2, total power output is 3.85x10^26 W and it can not even be switched off. It is not availability that restricts usage, but lack of technology. We should work on that (informatics of matter, i.e. molecular nanotech) and forget the rest. Or, if it is really urgent, learn to love nuke. Pour taxpayers money into immediate development of thorium breeder reactors. They do not make plutonium (the stuff used in warheads) and would generate a hundred times less nuclear waste than present day models. Thorium reserves last for thousands of years. RSVP, overpopulation is a problem, but earth is not overpopulated that much. The present state would ceartainly not justify austere measures like genocide, mass sterilization, artificial famines (e.g. by biofuel rush), industry restrictions, compulsory vegetarianism, free euthanasia, abolition of constitutional rights, etc. Raising the educational level of girls worldwide should suffice. The overall fertility of educated women is much lower, independent of culture. It costs (taxpayer's) money, but worth it. Does not curtail freedom, makes informed decision possible. Education restricted to boys does not have the same effect. -
Tom Dayton at 02:46 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
jpark wrote "You say a weather station sitting next to an a/c unit makes no difference - I just find that too hard to swallow." It makes no difference to the anomaly--to the change across time. The instrument on black asphalt might be five degrees hotter than an instrument 50 feet away, but that difference is constant across days. Monday, the asphalt instrument reads 55 degrees F, and the distant instrument reads 50 degrees F. Tuesday the overall air temperature in that local area is two degrees higher than it was Monday. So the asphalt instrument reads 57 degrees and the remote instrument reads 52 degrees. The change across days is 2 degrees regardless of which instrument you use. Both instruments accurately reveal the change in temperature of the ambient air. That consistency of change across time when measured by "nearby" instruments is not an assumption, nor a theoretical prediction. It is an observed fact. Observed over and over again. You personally can observe it by downloading and analyzing the temperature data. -
jpark at 02:45 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Tom, thanks. I do understand the idea of trends - I do get it, the penny is dropping. But is that it? If that is the totality of the AGW argument (eg. who cares how poorly sited the temp station is) then it looks like the idea is in big trouble. There is too much out there saying the data has been fixed and too little documentation and rebuttal of the charges. Sorry - am repeating myself. -
70rn at 02:39 AM on 28 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
@11 If you click on the link for Solanki's data in the reference the set it self starts in 1611. Yeh im not sure where the 1880 figure comes from either. -
Tom Dayton at 02:33 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
jpark and others, The "trend" that is temperature change is change across time. That trend is the "slope" of a graph of temperature on one axis and time on the other axis. By definitions of "trend" and "slope." The trend and therefore the slope will be unaffected by moving the entire plot up or down on the y axis (when the y axis is temperature). Moving the entire plot up or down on the y axis is exactly equivalent, by definition, of adding or subtracting a constant to all the temperatures. In other words, adding or subtracting a constant to all the temperatures does not change the trend of temperature across time. All the above is grade-school math. Not smoke and mirrors. -
Hoskibui at 02:32 AM on 28 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
-Response: -Not sure what you mean - what is the flaw? Maybe a misunderstanding of my behalf - figure 1 shows solar activity from 1611, but Solankis data dates only back to 1880. Never mind, good post. -
jpark at 02:24 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
I have been travelling so had limited time to read and digest but have found the exchange on this page to be especially enlightening - and gosh it appears I am a skeptic, oh dear. sbarron's last point is one I would echo. There is a lot for me to learn but if climate science looks like it is using 'tricks' to make me 'believe' something I will remain skeptical - I need to know that the data/baseline is good so that I can trust the trend it shows. You say a weather station sitting next to an a/c unit makes no difference - I just find that too hard to swallow. And today this: http://sppiblog.org/news/“horrifying-examples-of-deliberate-tampering-with-the-temperature-data” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf Tho' it is another Watts paper so maybe not welcome. -
barry1487 at 02:02 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
As far as I can tell, the baseline period was chosen because it occupies a period in history that was mostly stable for other, potential contributing climate change factors (solar, NAO, PDO, volcanoes etc etc). I can't vouch for it, but it seems to make sense. IIRC, I have read that it is statistically preferable to choose a stable (no trend/little trend) period as a baseline. -
sbarron2000 at 01:58 AM on 28 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Riccardo, If it’s so obvious, Riccardo, why just yesterday did you say..."mathematically (and i'd say logically) the choice of the baseline is totally irrelevant?" And just to clarify, I never said if the baseline changes, the baseline changes. I said if the baseline changes, then a given year's or decade's anomaly from the baseline will likely also change. And as I already said, if we were talking trend lines, I'd agree that the baseline doesn't matter. But we're not talking trend lines, as Marcus was citing a specific temperature anomaly over the "baseline." That baseline was set at 1961-1990. Which also, unfortunately Riccardo, is not pre-industrial, if that is what your last post is intending to imply. Marcus, You must see the significance between whether temperatures in 2000-2009 increased by +0.515 degrees C or only +0.26 degrees C, right? barry, I bet there are statistical reasons for choosing certain baselines. And in the hands of scientists, for the purposes for which they're intended, those baselines work great. But don't you see how Marcus used the enormity of his "facts" to attempt to put down jparks skepticism? As Marcus later admitted in #105, depending on where you set the baseline, the 2000s temp might have only increased by +0.26 degrees C, and not +0.515 degrees C as he argued. So while the scientists haven't done anything wrong in selecting their baseline, and Marcus correctly cited their data, Marcus didn't really provide the whole story in making his argument. I don't mean to pick on Marcus. His post just happens to be a perfect example of why I'm skeptical. Specific information can be highlighted to make a point, but later we learn that the details tell a different story. Heck, that seems to be the exact same trouble the IPCC is having these days. You can make a persuasive argument using only the best facts that support it, but that doesn't make your position true. And while your intentions may have been sincere when you made your argument, when the rest of the facts come out it makes you look disingenuous. -
Dennis at 00:21 AM on 28 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Don't neglect the fact that some ice age enthusiast like to assert that back in the 1970's the whole climate science community was all behind the belief that we were headed for an ice age. (Cue for them to pull out a dusty copy of Newsweek.) That assertion was debunked by Peterson, et. al. in Sept. 2008 BAMS "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus."Response: Been there, debunked that. Interestingly, an ice age was predicted in the 1970s is the 8th most popular skeptic argument, narrowly pipping we're heading into an ice age. -
Tony Noerpel at 23:46 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Hi John Nice. WRT comment 3, the columns are not labeled in the referenced table but they are further up the link. The data goes from 1611 to 2004 both in the figure and at Solanke's web site. I wouldn't call this a big flaw but the figure legend says 1880 to 1978. :) Does the data during the overlap align? Thank you TonyResponse: The Solanki TSI reconstruction and the PMOD satellite data do overlap after 1978. They show good correlation but I go with the PMOD satellite data as it's always better to use directly measured data over proxy reconstructions if you've got the option. I go into the construction of this graph some more here... -
chris at 23:25 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Fitz, Apparently the likelihood of the Gulf Stream switching off is not high: W.S. Broecker (1999) What If the Conveyor Were to Shut Down? GSA Today 9, 1-7 http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html see also discussion here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/gulf-stream-slowdown/ ...and if it did shut down, apparently this wouldn't be able to trigger an ice age: T. Kuhlbrodt et al. (2009) An Integrated Assessment of changes in the thermohaline circulation Climatic Change 96, 489-537 http://www.springerlink.com/content/75233057q541716x/?p=a742b208fb45474cb847ee5ac0b1aa37&pi=3 -
Riccardo at 23:12 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Oh well, we now learn the obvious. If we change the baseline the number changes! I could say I live on the 10th floor of on the first, it's just a change of the baseline. Or I could say that mount Everest is 8000+ m high if I want to impress you, but i could say it's just 1000+ m; it's just a change of baseline again. In the first example the obvious choice of the baseline is ground level, in the second (average) sea level. Guess the obvious choice of the baseline when talking about warming from the pre-industrial era ... they're hiding the rise!!! -
Ned at 23:06 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Arkadiusz Semczyszak writes: But for example, Lindzen has "a different view" about total RF of CO2; see [...] lindzen-choi-model-vs-reality.JPG I wouldn't put much weight on Lindzen & Choi 2009; it has a multitude of serious flaws that have been well documented elsewhere. See here, here, here, and here. Lindzen is one of the very, very few actual climate scientists who doesn't accept the consensus understanding of climate change. The exceptionally poor quality of L&C 2009 ought to tell us something about how weak that contrarian position is. Likewise, the fact that so many self-described "skeptics" were willing to uncritically accept the L&C 2009 paper without a second look is a nice demonstration of how credulous rather than skeptical most of these so-called skeptics are. A genuine skeptic would subject claims on all sides of a question to close examination. In the case of "climate skeptics" however, there's a fascinating combination of extreme, exaggerated skepticism towards mainstream climate science coupled with an utter lack of skepticism towards any paper, no matter how weak, that appears to contradict mainstream climate science. More examples of this phenomenon can be seen in the non-skeptical "skeptic" response to Chylek and to Khilyuk and Chilingar. -
Marcus at 22:59 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Barry also makes a good point. If I wanted to overstate the extent of the anomaly, I'd pick a 30-year baseline period like 1901-1930, when the average global temperature was 0.23 degrees colder than the 1961-1990 period. As far as I can tell, the baseline period was chosen because it occupies a period in history that was mostly stable for other, potential contributing climate change factors (solar, NAO, PDO, volcanoes etc etc). I can't vouch for it, but it seems to make sense. -
Marcus at 22:54 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Sbarron, what total rubbish-the anomaly trend doesn't alter at *all*. For example, GISS & HadCru both use the baseline of 1961-1990, & get a warming trend of around +0.163 degrees per decade for the period of 1979-2009. RSS & UAH satellite data, which uses a baseline of 1979-2000, shows a warming trend of around +0.156 degrees per decade over the 1979-2009 period-very little difference in trend irrespective of the absolute values of the anomalies. Also, both sets of data show a general acceleration in the warming trend, with each decade warming by more than the preceding decade-a disturbing trend regardless of your baseline. Be that as it may, when compared to the 1961-1990 baseline, we see the average temperature anomaly for 2000-2009 being +0.515 degrees, when compared to the 1979-2000 average (which, as you yourself admit, includes the warm 1990's period-& which is mostly *after* accelerated global warming is believed to have begun) the average temperature anomaly for 2000-2009 is still +0.26 degrees. So I'm really curious, what *exactly* is the nature of your objection? -
barry1487 at 22:48 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
If you change the baseline each successive decade, then decadal comparisons then become a more complicated exercise to say the same thing. Someone once told me that NSIDC chose their baseline to make later anomalies look bigger! In fact, they've considered switching to a 30-year base period, but it means that all their previous reports will be out of step (not on trend, obviously). Do they then go back and do the laborious task of making values on old web pages etc conform? No, better to keep the base period and save the trouble. sbarron, do you know there are statistical reasons for choosing those baselines for the temp records? They're not arbitrarily selected, and not to derive preferred magnitudes of anomalies (or they might easily have selected a much lower baseline - say 1880 - 1910, or the global temp at the year 1901...). -
Marcus at 22:39 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Arkadiusz Semczyszak-Lindzen can be readily dismissed IMHO. His study into the impacts of the Iris Effect have been found to be largely incorrect, because the Iris Effect lets in more energy than it lets out-as shown by the CERES satellite data. I've little doubt that Lindzen is incorrect on most other factors related to global warming too, as his vision is a little distorted by the views of his....benefactors. Also, American Thinker is hardly a quality source of unbiased reporting. It is Far Right in *all* its viewpoints. -
Fitz at 22:33 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
I remember being told that the Gulf Stream that brings warm waters from the equator to the North eastern Atlantic could effectively be shut off if global warming continues. I can’t remember the exact argument as it was some years ago in a Geochemistry lecture, but I believe that it was something to do with the warm water being too buoyant (due to salinity) to sink at the poles as they cool and drive the ocean circulation current. If this was to happen, would that not cause a drop in temperature across Europe, increasing the Earth's albedo and cause the start of another ice age? I know that this screams of that awful film “The Day After Tomorrow”, but is there any credibility in this happening over a more realistic timescale? -
sbarron2000 at 22:32 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
"Response: Note that the choice of the baseline period (eg - 1960 to 1990) has no bearing whatsoever on the temperature trend. As you say, the trend or "how much warmer" it's getting is what we're interested in when we look at temperature anomaly." Trend lines on an anomaly chart don't show how much warmer its getting, only whether its getting warmer, getting colder, or staying the same. It also shows how fast that is happening by the slope of the trend line. And I agree the slope of the trend line won't chage based on the selection of the baseline period. But the "degrees in C" magnitude of the change for a given period, or how much warmer its getting in degrees, is very much affected by the baseline. Marcus' statement that the 2000s were +0.515 degreee C warmer is only true when the baseline was set in 1961-1990. If you change that baseline, you change the average, which means you'll change how much warmer teh 2000s were by comparison. If you included the warm 1990s, or the even warmer 2000s, in your baseline, the actually increase in degrees C 2000s won't be nearly so high. The selection of the baseline can very mcuh shape the "results," and should give everyone pause when provided with information like that. Lies, damn lies, and statistics... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:23 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
"solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007)." The sun - the climate - is not only a change in TSI. I recommend my comment here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm "In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4)" But for example, Lindzen has "a different view" about total RF of CO2; see: http://www.americanthinker.com/Attachment%202.PNG; and http://lh4.ggpht.com/.../lindzen-choi-model-vs-reality.JPGResponse: Lindzen is not talking about the radiative forcing of CO2. He's talking about the climate response to radiative forcing. Eg - climate sensitivity. Lindzen believes climate is less sensitive to radiative forcing than is commonly thought. As far as the current topic of ice ages go, the climate response to a cooling sun would be even less according to Lindzen than is conventionally thought.
Coincidentally, the topic of climate sensitivity and the work of Lindzen will be addressed in the next post within a day or two. -
Hoskibui at 22:23 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Excelent work. One minor flaw that needs to be fixed - reference for the first part of figure 1.Response: Not sure what you mean - what is the flaw? -
Philip64 at 22:22 PM on 27 January 2010The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
Doug Bostrom: Thanks for that. I assume the Sunday Times article says more-or-less the same as the Daily Mail article. Where did this IPCC response appear? I would hope in The Sunday Times itself, but given the way that paper is sliding on this issue, I wouldn't be surprised if that was not the case. -
Philip64 at 22:13 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Excellent piece. Many people find the Interglacials graph especially persuasive; which is why it pops up on skeptic blogs again and again. -
sbarron2000 at 22:11 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
"Response: Note that the choice of the baseline period (eg - 1960 to 1990) has no bearing whatsoever on the temperature trend. As you say, the trend or "how much warmer" it's getting is what we're interested in when we look at temperature anomaly." I disagree. A trend in this case will be that the temp is going up, going down, or staying the same. That trend will have a slope. And I agree the temp. anomaly chart will show that trend, regardless of the base period, and the slope of the trend line will always be the same. But the magnitude of the temp change on an anomaly chart for any given year, or how much warmer that year was than average, is very much influenced by the baseline period. The 2000s where the warmest decade 'on record.' By including them in the baseline, you would increase the average temp over the entire baseline period, thus reducing the magnitude of the increase in temp in the 2000s "over the average." In doing so, the 1960s temp anomaly will apppear colder, because the baseline will be warmer than it was before the 2000s were included. If your intention is to find the trend line, then I agree the base period won't matter. But if you use the anomaly chart to argue "the 2000s showed an +0.513 C increase over the average, the baseline very much does matter. -
bit_pattern at 21:59 PM on 27 January 2010The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely
Brilliant work as always, John! -
barry1487 at 21:27 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Humanity Rules, you say in reference to the 'atest Watts/D'Aleo publication: Obviously prepared before the Mennes 2010 paper and based on the surfacestation.org project so I guess we now have both sides of the argument. The point of the top post is that Watts has always relied on anecdotes and photos to forward his argument that the official US temp records are unreliable, owing to UHI and microsite issues (mainly UHI). But never done the necessary number-crunching to make an actual quantitative comparison. We know from his own words that photos and anecdotes are insufficient. "...Actually what we want to find are the BEST stations. Those are the CRN1 and 2 rated stations. Having a large and well distributed sample size of the best stations will help definitively answer the question about how much bias may exist as a result of the contribution of badly sited stations." I learn from the latest publication you linked that:As of October 25, 2009, 1067 of the 1221 stations (87.4%) had been evaluated by the surfacestations.org volunteers and evaluated using the Climate Reference Network (CRN) criteria.
And no analysis has been done. Again. Watts promised to run a time series of the good stations when 75% of the total had been surveyed. He had an opportunity to do this in the Heartland Institute booklet he published last year. He had the opportunity to do that in this latest publication but has not. He has the opportunity to do it at his blogsite any day of the week for a year. He could release his data and let others do it, as was being done a couple of years ago, when analysis of the then 17 good stations surveyed found a close fit to the official temp records. Ironic, isn't it, that he won't release his (meta) data. So, no, we are not now hearing the 'other side' of the argument on the US temp record. We are hearing the same old talking points, seeing the same photos and single-site graphs, and the same old lack of number-crunching that would "definitively answer the question about how much bias may exist as a result of the contribution of badly sited stations" [A Watts - 11/08]. Surfacestations.org, while highly agenda-driven, is nevertheless a useful contribution to station rating. It is news to no one that there are siting and other issues with the USHCN. GISS and NOAA attempt to adjust for these problems when compiling the temp records. Watts claims that they fail do that well, and denigrates and smears the scientists involved. In order to corroborate his claim he must run the analysis as he outlined in 2008, and promised on many occasions. It is now generally felt, by those paying attention, that he has done this analysis and discovered much the same as Menne et al and other publications on the same subject. And therefore he won't publicise that result. He has allowed my posts querying him on this (all but one, and I am unfailingly polite on this issue), but he never answers them. And none of his supporters ever takes up the call, or even replies to my requests. John V likewise made an appeal last year, and Watts immediately made it personal. It's like there is collective cognitive dissonance on this. No one wants to go there, but it is the fundamental analysis that must be done because it goes to the heart of Watts inquiry. It is the raison d'etre for surfacestations.org, and the inspiration for all that has followed in the land of Watts. When will he show us the money? -
Marcus at 21:18 PM on 27 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
My point, HR, is that the correlation between burning more fossil fuels & wealth generation is not as strong as you seem to think. We had industrialization in Europe & the US for at least a century before the standard of living rose for average workers. This improvement came about because ordinary workers fought-tooth & nail-for better pay & conditions, & access to affordable education & health care, not to mention access to social security. Even today employers would like nothing more than to take this all away from us or-failing that-shift the jobs to low labor cost countries. Many western nations have achieved very high per capita GDP whilst having below average per capita energy use-mostly due to making more efficient use of energy & fuel-which is what we should be encouraging in the 3rd world. We should also be encouraging a greater use of renewable energy sources suitable to the region-like Geothermal power for Indonesia & Solar Power for Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as industrial co-generation & biomass-gas. My point is that wealth generation *can* be suitably achieved *without* a corresponding rise in CO2 emissions-as long as we help the developing world to avoid the pitfalls that we endured. Using their plight as an excuse to ignore global warming, though, is a total cop-out! -
sbarron2000 at 21:16 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
doug_bostrom at 17:07 PM on 27 January, 2010 "A thermometer could be placed in a frying pan and yet as long as it has dynamic range available it'll still be able to register a trend in temperature and that trend will be separable from the frying pan component." I agree with this. However, is that the situation we have here with these poorly sited stations? I'm sure they all must have some dynamic range, but is that range consistant from one station to the next? Does it need to be? What if its not? Does that fact that the "bad" stations have an error range of >1 degreee C, >2 degree C, and >5 degree C play a role when measuring trends? Should these bad stations be lumped together when doing this analysis? Do you get different trend results when you separate out the different bad station catagories? Menne 2010 only tells us what it does, within the parameters it sets out. They do a lot of things that may or may not be the best way to answer these questions. Acting like rgis paper has settled the issue is putting the wagon before the horse. No one has even had a chance to respond yet. Heck, it took years for the hockey stick chart to get corrected. If you're open minded, should you be so quick to dismiss skeptical discussions of this paper? I don't see how. -
Marcus at 21:03 PM on 27 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
RSVP, you try telling that to the corporations & religious institutions who thrive of an ever growing population. As long as they dictate the course of government policy then you'll *never* get your wish. Even if we somehow level out our population below 8 billion, it's unlikely we'll be able survive at those numbers once all the oil & coal runs out-which is why its even more imperative that we start switching to low-carbon, renewable energy sources *before* our non-renewable energy sources run out. So, whether we look at it from a CO2 or resource depletion perspective, cutting our use of fossil fuels is a *good thing*! -
RSVP at 18:22 PM on 27 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
I keep saying that overpopulation is THE problem. If there is one thing humans could possibly control, it is population growth (at least more easily than forcing reduced per capita consumption). And if humans dont do this for themselves, Nature will...(as is becoming evident). -
Albatross at 17:48 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Marcus, Re #96. Oh I hear you. I'm an atmospheric scientist involved in R&D and land-atmosphere feedbacks-- I'm going to have to work until as long as they will keep me on. So much for a Phd in the sciences helping make me stinking rich. Yes, we scientists are rolling in money, and can't get enough so we have to fabricate lies and deception to put the fear of you know who in everyone so we can somehow get paid more money (sarc)? The mind boggles. It is a wonder anyone wants to be a climate scientist or work in a climate related field nowadays-- maybe that is their intention. The perks are not great-- death threats, libel and defamatory comments, harassment, nonstop attacks on your work from the peanut gallery, having your email and/or computers hacked, FOIAs up the yazoo, every denier or self-proclaimed "true skeptic or realist" claiming to have discovered the "truth"...on Google. What blows my mind is Watts et el. using pseudo science, deception and even lies to "refute" science conducted by NASA and NOAA and other reputable groups. Wonder if JPark has tracked down those long-term global temp. trends yet? Anyhow, so much rhetoric, so little substance from the contrarian camp. Seems to be the norm nowadays and, alas, Watts et al. and Fox news have the recipe down pat. I thought Lindzen claims that he has stopped that nasty habit (taking FF money) a while ago? Humanity Riules, re #95. Are you going for the record to see how many strawman arguments you can invoke in one post? I was woprried this would happen, you see Mennes et al's paper makes sense to those in the know, and most reasonable and well-adjusted people would accept their findings. Now Watts and his friend Pielke Snr. just cannot graciously accept defeat, "never capitulate men, never". So now he starts with more obfuscation and red herrings, all of which his (mostly ignorant) followers gobble up and then gleefully disseminate over the web without so much as a second thought or critique, thus spreading more misinformation and confusion. The internet is certainly a great tool for the denialists Humanity and you are helping their machine of misinformation. Congrats, Anthony will be proud. Humanity, the planet is warming b/c of it is in a positive energy imbalance and it has nothing to do with "fudged data" or the UHI or microclimate issues. Please explain to us why the RSS, RATPAC, GISS, CRU, NCDC all have very similar warming trends over the last 30 years...Also explain why, in the long term, the oceans are accumulating heat (no UHI going on there). Also, just why are those dratted ice sheets and glaciers in the middle of well, nowhere, losing ice at ever increasing rates? Now those are the important issues here, not the ramblings and rantings of Watts et al. on a BLOG. You honestly think that you know something that the scientists who have spent most of their careers working on this issue have miraculously missed or ignored? Err, NO. Watts does not understand the concept of an anomaly properly, yet you are determined to take his ramblings at face value while damning the work of the scientists? Uh huh. Oh well, I'm mostly OT here, so I'd better stop now before webmaster snips me (and I'm OK with that John). -
HumanityRules at 17:14 PM on 27 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
Marcus a) better education - you can do this the low carbon way (blackboards and chalk) or high carbon way (computers). i know which would be more important for my children and children in Bangladesh. b) building better infrastructure requires energy. This can come from backbreaking human labour (with a pickaxe) or the high carbon/high tech way with machinery. I know which I wouldn't get out of bed to do and which shouldn't be forced on the Bangladesh. c) energy through local resourses. The reverse side of this is exclusion from international hydrocarbon products. These still remain the cheapest form of energy, the reason they are first choice for the west. d) No real arguement there except you seem to be putting future embargoes on Nigerian oil and Indonesian coal while the USA, UK and Australia have undoubtedly seen great benefit from exploiting there own hydrocarbons in the past. I'm not a gungho capitalist and I'm well aware of the injustices and inequalities of the system but we shouldn't mix up the progressive aspects of modern development with the regressive power structures. Multinational capitalism exists in every country. It is not a reason to deny Bangladeshis, Brazillians or the Chinese access to cheap, abundant power and jobs. -
Doug Bostrom at 17:07 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
HumanityRules at 16:19 PM on 27 January, 2010 You still don't get it, do you? A thermometer could be placed in a frying pan and yet as long as it has dynamic range available it'll still be able to register a trend in temperature and that trend will be separable from the frying pan component. But I forgot: it's vital that you not understand this because Watts' hypothesis is a straw you've been grasping at for years. Watts' idea is dead. It was not even strictly necessary for Mennes to publish this paper, Watts' hypothesis can be falsified easily either by thought or experiment, without visiting a single sorry parking lot. -
Doug Bostrom at 16:59 PM on 27 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
HumanityRules, Berényi Péter, I see that you're fully signed on with Watts et al and their reckless campaign of degeneration and destruction. Lacking a powerful, robust argument against the fundamental physics at play here, a scorched earth maneuver is of course their only bet. They'll burn the academy to the ground if that's what is needed to pursue their course. Inadvertently smashing individual careers and decades of well earned public trust in the benefits of science is no deterrent. The rot they're spreading will not automatically confine itself to whatever fields of inquiry they must attack. Your thought leaders may well succeed in their twisted and perverse quest, but success does not correlate well with correctness or justice, as we've seen time and again. I hope you've been very careful in thinking about the choices you're making here. There's a long future ahead of you, time for lots of regrets. -
yocta at 16:46 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.<-i> -Albert Einstein -
Marcus at 16:31 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
You want to know what's really hilarious, Albatross? One of the primary sources of satellite temperature data is the University of Alabama, Huntsville-home of the well-known Skeptic Dr Roy Spencer. Now, if there was some collusion going on, you'd expect Spencer's data to be way out of step with GISS, RSS & other sources of temperature data (maybe showing a cooling trend over the last 30 years). Yet in fact there is virtually no discrepancy at all-so much for the conspiracy theories of the Denialist Cult. As for scientists trying to get rich. Yeah right, I've been working as a micro/molecular biologist for almost a decade, & will probably have to work until I'm in my 70's if I want to have a comfortable retirement. I doubt your average climatologist gets paid much more than me. So the idea that scientists are somehow "getting rich" off global warming fears is errant nonsense. Now skeptics like Lindzen, who charge the fossil fuel industry $2,500 a day for consulting services, are probably getting rich quick-but by fostering skepticism! -
HumanityRules at 16:19 PM on 27 January 2010On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record
On your updates. You say UHI is real, but don't say the same for microsite influences. And I guess the paper is refuting microsite influences. So placing thermostats over concrete has no affect? There is no need to rank stations because whatever you do to them seems to have no nett affect? The history of ranking stations by quality of station was all a waste of time? This one paper upsets what have been considered important practises for weather stations? On your second updates Watts has produced the following http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/surface_temp1.pdf Obviously prepared before the Mennes 2010 paper and based on the surfacestation.org project so I guess we now have both sides of the argument. But much of this argument is about the quality of the data set as a whole rather than individual stations. -
Marcus at 16:16 PM on 27 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
The same is true about the destruction of the Amazon HR. Its being destroyed *not* for the enrichment of the Brazilian people, but for the enrichment of Multinational Companies which thrive on either cheap timber or cheap, short-term pasture for cattle. The ordinary people of Brazil, meanwhile, continue to mostly live in abject squalor. -
Marcus at 16:14 PM on 27 January 2010Peer reviewed impacts of global warming
HumanityRules, do you think for one second that those Multinational companies who thrive on the low-wage, low-tax, cheap resource environment of the Third World are in any way interested in seeing these regions benefit from any kind of economic development? No, much better to keep them poor in order to maintain profits. One way to keep them poor is to keep them dependent on very expensive, outside sources for energy & fuel, thus maintaining high levels of debt & diverting wealth *away* from raising the standard of living. The best way to ensure a better standard of living for countries like Bangladesh is not through burning more fossil fuels, but through (a) providing better education & higher paid jobs, (b) building better, more efficient infrastructure, (c) helping poor nations to generate energy using locally available materials & (d) paying these countries a more reasonable price for access to their resources. Of course this won't happen because it interferes with the ability of certain groups to MAXIMIZE PROFITS. These are often the very same groups who go around telling us that Global Warming isn't real!
Prev 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 Next
