Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 Next
Comments 24151 to 24200:
-
climatehawk1 at 23:38 PM on 9 June 2016Trump and global warming: Americans are failing risk management
Worth noting: thought I would poke around yesterday and see who was hyping the Arctic sea ice "recovery" in 2014. I came across this comment from Judith Curry (who is featured in the cartoon): "The relative recovery of the Arctic sea ice last September has pretty much put the kibosh on forecasts of an imminent ‘spiral of death’ for the Arctic sea ice." https://judithcurry.com/2014/06/17/what-can-we-expect-for-this-years-arctic-sea-ice/
-
Jaimesald at 22:46 PM on 9 June 2016Trump and global warming: Americans are failing risk management
There is the problem that there is no unique/unambiguous understanding/definitions for the concepts of Climate and Climate Change, not even for IPCC/UNFCCC.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:34 PM on 9 June 2016Trump and global warming: Americans are failing risk management
chriskoz @2, as bad as a President Trump would be (and he would certainly be inimical to the USA's national interest, and even more so for the demographic that most supports him) he cannot be considered as bad as the current president elect of the Phillipines, Rodrigo Duturte. Against that, Duturte will be disasterous for the Phillipines, but for no other nation while a President Trump would be a disaster for the western world. That is not, however, a measure of relative incompetencies, but of the relative power and economic significance of the USA.
-
chriskoz at 13:13 PM on 9 June 2016Trump and global warming: Americans are failing risk management
John Hartz@1,
Thank you for bringing this piece of evidence here. I want to follow up with further evidence I found referenced therein.
It only confirms that Trump does not care about veracity of his comments and the consitency of his positions on any issue facing Americans, that he should be nominally concerned as a presidential candidate. That applies not only to climate change mitigation but any policy imaginable.
With respect to the climate change policy, in Feb 2010, just two months after having signed the open leter to Obama you're quoting here, Trump told members of the Trump National Golf Club that Al Gore should be stripped of his Nobel Prize because that winter had been cold.
“With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore”
Such self-contradiction signifies at least childish-like irresponsibility. We've seen similar contradictions over and over. It's hard to imagine a presidential candidate who could rival him in his inaptitude as a leader of any country, needless to say the most powerful country in the world. If he'd been elected in November, it'd have been an unprecedented paradox in the history of humanity.
-
John Hartz at 09:12 AM on 9 June 2016Trump and global warming: Americans are failing risk management
Prior to pandering to the extreme right-wing nuts in the US, Donald Trump (and three of his children) sang a different song about manmade climate change...
As negotiators headed to Copenhagen in December 2009 to forge a global climate pact, concerned U.S. business leaders and liberal luminaries took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for aggressive climate action. In an open letter to President Obama and the U.S. Congress, they declared: “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”
One of the signatories of that letter: Donald Trump.
Also signed by Trump’s three adult children, the letter called for passage of U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change.
“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” the letter tells the president and Congress. “Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.”
Donald Trump once backed urgent climate action. Wait, what? by Ben Adler and Rebecca Leber, Grist, June 8, 2016
-
villabolo at 04:17 AM on 9 June 2016Scientists: 2016 likely to be hottest year on record despite looming La Niña
From basic rebuttal #49. UAH temperature chart showing the jump up in both El Niños (Pink lines) and La Niñas (Green lines) post 1997. Unfortunately our dear Skeptic Spencer has revised his chart which eliminates the actual trend seen in this previous version.
-
MA Rodger at 03:48 AM on 9 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Mike Hillis @77.
As I demonstrated @70, your input onto this thread has been remarkable in its content. The one significant contention you had not eventually retracted prior to #70 was there challenged and you have thus far failed to present any meaningful response to that challenge.
I was generous @76 in conceding that your complaint did include pointing to an explanation within the OP that to my eyes "may not be strictly correct" but I do not @76 concede that that explanation is "wrong." If you still consider that it is "wrong" or "utterly wrong," you really should present reasons for considering it so and not resort to unsubstantiated assertions. That is what the SkS comments policy requires of you. "If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error." (My bold)
-
Mike Hillis at 02:20 AM on 9 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Wrong and utterly wrong are the same thing. Remove it. And thank me for pointing out the error net time, instead of gish galloping.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please improve your tone of commenting. As pointed out before, neither Tom nor MA are gish-galloping. They're merely explaining the relevant science.
-
MA Rodger at 00:18 AM on 9 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Mike Hillis @74.
You are claiming that "the OP claims that there is no isotope proxy after 1855 because of this reason (ie that "it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice."), which is utterly wrong."
The OP does assert this reason but specifically saying "the first data point in the temperature series (is) from layers dated to 1855." Thus your "isotope proxy" must mean a 'temperature series' and we are specifically discussing such a series that is also δ18O-based. I contend there is no such temperature series presenting post-AD1855 data and challenged you @70 to show there was one.
You claim @74 to have already shown such a data series @58 above.
But do you not see the problem? That data presents GISP2 δ18O data. It is titled "GISP2 Oxygen Isotope Data." It does not present a temperature series.
The reason it is not GISP2 Temperature Series Data is because it is no simple job to convert that GISP2 δ18O data into temperature data. Calibration using borehole temperatures & gas analysis and the data smoothing used through the ice core would become highly problematic if somebody wished to make use of the δ18O data within the firn & snow layers.
And I cannot take seriously your suggestion that AD1855 is some form of limit of interest for a study of the Younger-Dryas event. Perhaps in Alley (2000) you can see some reference to data more recent than 10,000yBP. Myself, I cannot.
While the reason for the Alley (2004) data ending in AD1855 is not greatly significant to the error of Easterbrook addressed by the OP, the reason given for AD1855 being the end-date may not be strictly correct but it is in no way "utterly wrong."
-
denisaf at 15:16 PM on 8 June 2016Climate change and the value of daring
No doubt there will be many organisations that will do their utmost to encourage measures to cope with what is happening. Irreversible rapid climate change and ocean acidification and warming are largely the unintended consequences of using fosssil fules in industrialzation. Practical reduction in the rate of usage of these fuels can only slow this process down slightly. The main emphasis should be on adaption to such predicaments as sea level rise.
-
Mike Hillis at 14:12 PM on 8 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
If it's helpful, the core study at the University of Washington was started around 1997 when Kurt Cuffey was a grad student there, and completed in 1999 after he got his doctorate and went to Berkeley. Also, one of his professors at Penn State during his undergrad years was, guess who.
-
Mike Hillis at 13:01 PM on 8 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
MA Rodger said @70:
[Is it truly a "basic error with the OP" to state that "it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice"? The OP statement quoted here is correct in itself. Further it does explain why Alley (2004) stopped his temperature reconstruction in 1855 which is a fundamental part of the post. I do not see here any "basic error."]
It's not an error to say it takes time to consolidate snow to ice, but it's misleading, because the snow does not need to consolidate to measure the 18O isotopes, and because this is long before the Argon/Nitrogen bubble study there is no reason to consider the entrapment of bubbles in the ice via consolidation. The OP claims that there is no isotope proxy after 1855 because of this reason, which is utterly wrong.
MA Rodger said @70:
[Perhaps a challenge should be set for Mike Hillis. Isotope data can be and is taken from snow and this data can be and is dated and added to ice core isotope data. But where is this data published authoritatively as a temperature series? Alley (2004) provides such a temperature series but only to 1855. Is there an ice core/snow temperature series that continues to a later date?]
I already gave a link to this data series in posts 58 and 59. Those measurements were done on the ice cores by the University of Washington, after they had been moved to the US (Alley et. al. made their measurements in a sheltered laboratory in Greenland.) I see Tom Curtis links to that study in @73.
Alley stopped his temperature data at 1855 in his paper on the Younger Dryas, not because that's the latest data he had, but more likely because he was writing about an event at the beginning of the Holocene and anything after 1855 was not relevant to the Younger Dryas. I'm sure that Alley had at his disposal, all the data after 1855, and I'm sure he also was aware of the 1999 University of Washington measurements on the same cores.
-
BBHY at 12:02 PM on 8 June 2016Scientists: 2016 likely to be hottest year on record despite looming La Niña
I think it is important to note that our "cool" La Nina years of the 21st century are still hotter than most of the hot El Nino years of the previous century., with the one exception being the monster El Nino of 1998. Just compare 2008 to all of the years of the 1900's.
That is the state of the climate in this century; a "cool" year in these times would have, not very long ago, been considered an extremely, outrageously hot year. Then our hot years are extermely, outrageously hot even beyond that.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:52 AM on 8 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
MA Rodger @72, I am guessing Alley and Koci (1990) is also not what you are after, as it reconstructs GISP 2 temperatures from measured temperatures in the bore hole. It is still informative:
I have added a line indicating 1855 for easy comparison, and it can be seen that 1855 is about 1.5 C cooler than modern temperatures. As Alley and Koci (1990) was referenced in Alley (2000b), it is further reason as to why Easterbrook should not have made his "mistake".
I have not been able to find dO18 based temperature reconstruction brought up to the late 20th century, but the dO18 values to 1987 are available online. I have used the temperature relationship specified in the University of Washington's annual dataset, along with the temperature relationship specified in Cuffey and Clow (1997), specifically T=(2.15 x dO18) + 43.4. I have compared the running decadal mean to that for the BEST Greenland data:
Just to be clear, the initial decade is 1823-1832. The final decade is 1978-1987 for the dO18 and 2003-2012 for BEST. The greater variability of the dO18 record is probably due to a combination of altitude changes, changes in the source moisture for preciptation, along with the fact that the record is from a single site. The temperature difference between 1850-1859 and 2003-2012 is 1.41 C on the BEST record, and is likely to have been similar in the dO18 record, had it been continued to the present. In any event, regardless of the method used (graviational defraction, borehole temperaures, dO18, or regional thermometers) the 1855 temperature is well below modern values.
-
MA Rodger at 04:05 AM on 8 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Tom Curtis @71,
Kobashi et al (2011) wasn't actually what I had in mind (although it does fit the description I presented @70). The method of Kobashi et al. is to use nitrogen & argon isotope ratios in the air bubbles. So this does not fit with the Mike Hillis assertion that the oxygen isotopes from H2O in snow layers provide a temperature proxy that can be seemlessly affixed to the ice isotope data, that it is effectively the same data series.
Kobashi et al. (2009) describes the method they use for their most recent proxy data thus:-
"Our latest data for isotopes is 1950 C.E. as the air occlusion process is not completed for recent decades. For the period 1950-1993, the surface temperature is estimated heuristically by a forward model (Goujon et al. 2003) running various surface temperature scenarios to find the best fit with the borehole temperature record."
-
Tom Curtis at 23:02 PM on 7 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
MA Rodger @70: "Is there an ice core/snow temperature series that continues to a later date?"
Kobashi et al (2011), discussed here, is probably what you are looking for. There reconstruction spans the last 4000 years (2000 BCE to 2000 CE), but terminates in 1993:
They find that 74 of the 400 decades (18.5%) were as warm as, or warmer than the decade from 2001-2010. That means that not less than 31.6% of decades over the last 10,000 years were cooler than the 2001-2010 average.
-
MA Rodger at 21:53 PM on 7 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
I find it all quite amusing to see folk bashing on regardless of the trail of nonsense they leave behind them up-thread although it is rather cruel to let them continue without comment.
Mike Hillis @68.
You appear on this thread @52 with all guns blazing & accusations of "fabrication" because, you tell us, (A) Alley (2000) uses data that does not end in 1855 & (B) Alley (2000) does not use 1855 as any sort of "present" & (C) that you can get usable isotope measurements from firn & snow.
Yet @57 you roll back the (A) accusation on 1855 being the latest data used by Alley (2000) & (B) that 95ybp = 1855 but (C) insist the isotope data does exist for later years.
(Note this already provides what the Moderator Response was asking for @68.)
As this position didn't appear to constitute a "fabrication" any more, and "fabrication" being such a strong position, you were asked & did restate your position @63, but an entirely different one, a whole new ball game. (D) It is a fabriation to assert that Easterbrook & Mad Lord Monckton have perpetrated a lie about holocene temperatures being mainly warmer than today. (E) The bulk of the holocene was warmer than today, but you then present a graphic of holocene temperatures which amusingly shows the exact opposite.
Now @68 we find Easterbrook is pshawed so persumably we can consider (D) & (E) to be retracted but (C), unmentioned since your comment @60, is restated @68.
Is it truly a "basic error with the OP" to state that "it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice"? The OP statement quoted here is correct in itself. Further it does explain why Alley (2004) stopped his temperature reconstruction in 1855 which is a fundamental part of the post. I do not see here any "basic error."
Perhaps a challenge should be set for Mike Hillis. Isotope data can be and is taken from snow and this data can be and is dated and added to ice core isotope data. But where is this data published authoritatively as a temperature series? Alley (2004) provides such a temperature series but only to 1855. Is there an ice core/snow temperature series that continues to a later date?
Moderator Response:[RH] Missed that. Moderation retracted @68.
(edit) At this point, it's unclear what Mike Hillis' complaint about the OP actually is. Perhaps he will endeavor to better clarify.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:19 PM on 7 June 2016A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Nylo @86, you are correct, and obviously I did not think that through enough in my response.
As it happens, the greater temperature variability in the NH winter is not caused by the change in temperature gradient. Rather, it is caused by a large change in the position of the polar jet stream between summer and winter:
The more southerly polar jet stream in winter means the variability associated with its change of position moves further south and effects more territory. The contrast can be very stark in that air north of the polar front comes from the Arctic, while south of the polar front it comes from tropical and sub-tropical regions. What is more, as tropical temperatures show little seasonal variation, that means air from the south drawn north in the summer also shows little variation. In contrast, due to the low greenhouse effect at the poles, along with the fact that air temperature varies rapidly over the poles, there is a much larger seasonal contrast.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 7 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Mike Hillis @68, a gish gallop is "...the fallacious debating tactic of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly rebut each one in real time". Unlike you, who included five falsehoods or misrepresentations in just your first sentence @63, I discussed each point in detail, with evidence. Further, each of my points was a rebutal of just one of your falsehoods or misrepresentations. There is therefore, no doubt as to who employed a gish gallop in this discussion. Thoroughly rebutted, you are not even able to muster a tu quoque, but rely instead of the barstardized play ground version, "No, you are...".
If that is not enough, the key feature of a gish gallop is final point:
"And if even one argument in the Gish Gallop is untouched or insufficiently rebutted, the Galloper will claim victory — an abuse of the one single proof fallacy."
Again, you do not have the class to pull even that of. Instead your claim of victory relies on a claim you did not even make @63, but rather earlier in the discussion - and which was refuted earlier in the discussion in any event.
What you do not seem able to get through your thick head is that neither Alley (2000a) and (2000b), nor Cuffey and Clow (1997), rely solely on a dO18 paleothermometer. Among other things Cuffey and Clow rely on a correction based on changes in the sites altitude over time, the later being determined by included gas composition (as discussed above). Alley (2000a) and (2000b) also rely on the temperature dependent gravitational difraction of heavier gases as it diffuses through the firn as a secondary paleothermometer, to that obtained from Cuffey and Clow. As both of these additional thermometers rely on included gas, it is quite appropriate for Alley to extend his data no further than the closure of the firn, even though the dO18 extended to 1987.
Unless you explicitly address these points in any further response, I will regard your further responses as mere sloganeering (which, truth be told, is all you have contributed to date) and not bother responding.
-
Mike Hillis at 07:36 AM on 7 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Tom, it is you who are guilty of gish galloping. None of your rapid-fire arguments changes the basic error with the OP that I pointed out, namely, the following quote from the OP:
"it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice."
I pointed out that there is no need for snow to pack down into ice before the isotope temperature proxy can be measured, and in fact, it can be done with freshly fallen snow. You made a mistake when you made a comment about the air bubbles in the ice being a factor, and I showed how nobody measures the isotopes in the bubbles, but in the water itself, whether it be snow, firn, or ice. This basic error invalidates the comment I quoted in the OP, and in the interest in scientific accuracy, the OP needs to be edited and corrected on that point. This is no gisg gallop, this is one very valid point.
I find fault with Easterbrook for not showing the warming of the past century, though. It certainly does not pass the scientific accuracy test. Pshaw on him.
Moderator Response:[RH] In order for this conversation to move forward you first need to acknowledge that your original statement was incorrect where you say, "I read this thread and am shocked by what I'm reading. The data that Richard Alley uses does not end in 1855, nor does it use 1855 as any sort of 'present'."
The data being presented in the OP absolutely does end at 95 years before 1950, where 1950 represents "present." Thus, the data and graphs being discussed do end in 1855.
Moderation retracted
-
Nylo at 03:01 AM on 7 June 2016A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
Tom Curtis @85, if, like you say, the NH temperate zone winter temperatures show "by far greater variability" than summer temperatures, and this is a time when the equator to pole gradient is at its maximum, doesn't that suggest the opposite of what the article claims? Wouldn't a reduction of the gradient (making it closer to the summer one) bring a more stable climate in the NH temperate zone, like we have in summer?
The article postulates that lower gradient means more chaotic climate. For this to have any chance of being close to the truth, we would have to see way more chaotic climate in summer than in winter, given the big reduction in the gradient of temperature arctic-tropics between winter and summer. You seem to be saying that the opposite is true, i.e. that the chaotic weather happens more in winter.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 23:57 PM on 6 June 2016How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
nodeniro.
Since WAG is probaly long since moved on - it was 7 years ago, perhaps you would like to open a conversation on a current issue? -
Glenn Tamblyn at 23:37 PM on 6 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
Personally, I think that the sense of how much damage Trump could overtly do is over-stated. The government has a lot of formal checks.
But the informal checks available to the system to stymie a truly bad presient are enormous. 'Yes Mr President, we have the executive order, but SEAL TEAM 5 en-route to the target zone had to abort due to smoke in the cockpit (from some toilet paper they lit because I told them to)"If Trump tried to do many of the things he talks about, the phrase 'It's lonely at the top' may take on a whole new meaning.
Because at the end of the day, Trump isn't Putin. If Trump's behaviour suggested he was a cold-hearted, dead-fish scary bastard like Putin who also could work a crowd, then be very afraid. But he isn't Putin.
The Donald knows how to close the deal. He knows f@c&-All about what to do after that - as his business track-record shows.
The real threat Trump poses is what damage his paralysis, failure, and emotive ineptitude in office might cause.
His overt actions don't count - the intitutions of America, formal and informal are too strong for that.
But the incidental consequences of his floundering around. Oh My God.
Hilary Clinton may be struggling to match The Donald as a cheap carney salesmanperson. But she, and many others, will give him a master-class in how to use systems to rip someones heart out after he is in office. Parts of the Republican machine know how to do this. The Donald is ignoring them. -
erich at 16:26 PM on 6 June 2016In-depth: Experts assess the feasibility of ‘negative emissions’
Soil Biology is our only way to rapidly and massively draw down CO2 from the air to offset our ongoing and past carbon emissions, It Can safely and naturally restore the hydrological cycles by increasing biogenic aerosols and cloud albedo that can readily cool the planet by the 3 watts/m2 needed to offset the now locked in greenhouse warming effects and avoid the Storms of Our Grandchildren.
The French have lead the way recognizing Soil Carbons' value and committing to build Soil Carbon by 0.40% annually. Putting them on the road to Carbon Negativity before any industrialized country. 25 nations have signed on to 4p1000. 100 of the 196 countries in Paris submitted plans to reduce CO2 via agriculture, forestry and replacing soil carbon into their programmes.
http://4p1000.org/understandA combination of Best Management Practices, (BMPs), for Agriculture, Grazing & Forestry with bioenergy systems which build soil carbon can deliver the giga-tons of carbon necessary into the soil sink bank.
Ag BMPs; 1 GtC, New Forest & BMPs; 1 GtC
Pyrolitic Bioenergy, Cooking Stoves; nearly 1/2 GtC
Industrial Pyrolitic Bioenergy; 2 GtC
Holistic Grazing; 2+ GtCOver 6 GtC,
So soils & biota can do more than half the 10 GtC reduction job, feeding carbon to life instead of death.Carbon Sequestration Cascade;
Each Black Carbon gram (biochar & humus) can increase Water Retention by 8 grams, and can support 10 grams of Green Carbon, which each can feed up to 10 more grams of fungal mycelium White Carbon growthCarbon has been fundamental to life since the birth of our planet. It’s the source of all wealth and the conduit of all joy. Carbon cycles among and between billions of interconnected earthlings, whose fates teeter on the element’s return trip to the soil. Only the generous reciprocity inherent to life macrocycles can restore abundance and harmony to the planet of the living. May we celebrate a happy Intended Anthropocene, anointed in water & Soil rather than Oil and Blood.
Soil-C Farming of Oz
"The Cat's Cradle"
Improving Agricultural Productivity and Economic Viability through Improved Understanding of Natural Systems
http://biochar.us.com/584/cats-cradleClean Biomass cooking is no small thing.
The World Bank Study;
Biochar Systems for Smallholders in Developing Countries:
Leveraging Current Knowledge and Exploring Future Potential for Climate-Smart Agriculture
http://fb.me/38njVu2qz -
Haze at 15:23 PM on 6 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
KR @25 Fair enough but if I did that someone could and likely would, accuse me of selective editing. I agree there is a lot there but although it is not climate change orientated it does believable commentary on what is driving many US voters into the arms of a man who is no friend of those who are supporters of action to address climate change.
-
KR at 12:55 PM on 6 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
Haze - You might consider highlighting the important points you see in such articles, rather than block copying entire articles without any interpretation. TL;DR.
Yes, there is considerable dissatisfaction with current US politics; the current Legislature is gridlocked, the Tea Party represents the worst of manufactured movements intended to prevent legislation, and the amount of money going into elections is by itself a corrupting influence. But that doesn't change the fact that the common elementins Trump supporters are liking simplistic authoritarian statements promising no change, with woe to those who disagree.
-
Haze at 11:37 AM on 6 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
My apologies. I have just read a piece in yesterday's Australian Financial Review (paywalled) by T J Pempel Professor of Political Science at University of California Berkeley. In this piece, writtten for an audience in Asia' He does address the question for which I have been trying to elicit answers.
He commences "Virtually every Asian academic, business leader, policymaker or taxi driver I have encountered in the past six months has, within minutes, pummelled me for answers to the Trump question.
They are flabbergasted that a man so bereft of political experience, foreign policy know-how and macroeconomic basics, who radiates disdain for foreigners, women and the disabled, has come to dominate the American political dialogue. Bemused befuddlement at a self-aggrandising buffoon has given way to ripening anxiety that he may well become the next occupant of the Oval Office, unleashing disastrous consequences for economic and security relations across the Asia-Pacific.
There are four points that Asians must understand about the Trump phenomenon."
"First Driving American voters today is a toxic cocktail of anger at what appears to be a rigged economic system serviced by a self-serving political class. Fraudulent financiers crashed the economy in 2008 but got huge bonuses instead of jail cells. Corporations and top executives offshored the manufacturing jobs that once provided stable middle-class lifestyles for swaths of the American public. The social safety net is frayed, infrastructure is collapsing and costly education provides little guarantee of upward mobility. Meanwhile, Washington politicians serve wealthy donors while the government spends trillions of dollars on losing wars in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq."
"Second, Trump is the logical consequence of decades of Republican Party actions. Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy" drew in white voters upset about programs that enhanced minority electoral and social power or challenged the views of evangelical Christians. Since then, the Republican Party has gained voter support by promising to reverse what many see as the erosion of traditional American values."
"The third point is that Trump could win. America's punditry has not been short of predictions about how the Trump campaign is certain to go down in flames. The Republican establishment is split. The party's support level has plummeted. The Democratic Party has a built-in Electoral College advantage that will be bolstered by bipartisan waves of voters appalled at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Such claims certainly make a powerful case for Trump's defeat.
Yet the pundits now predicting a Trump thumping are the same ones who argued that he could not get more than 10 per cent of the Republican primary vote, that the Republican establishment would not "allow" a Trump nomination or that media exposition of his inconsistencies would doom his candidacy. All such predictions have proven hollow."
"Finally, a Trump presidency would be catastrophic for Asia. His campaign is bereft of foreign policy expertise and numerous experienced Republican operatives have declared their unabashed opposition to him. Would some of them join a Trump administration? Quite possibly, but hardly in the numbers needed to offset Trump's "America first" prioritisation.
Economic relationships from regional trade pacts to multilateral institutions are likely to become fodder for Trump's self-proclaimed expertise as a deal maker. So too are decades-long alliances, America's longstanding commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, its nuanced efforts to balance engagement with hedging in China policy and the determination to balance US military muscularity with diplomatic sensitivity"
The author does not cmment on Climate Change
-
Haze at 11:09 AM on 6 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
I seem not to have communicated what I was hoping to do. The point I was trying to make is not whether commenters here or elsewhere, do or don't like Trump or his supporters but that someone (Albrechtsen) has had the wit to focus on why Americans are voting for Trump. And chriskoz at 18 surely that is entirely germane to this thread.
-
chriskoz at 10:27 AM on 6 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
Mods, I have accidentally downgraded Haze@18 post, for which I'm sorry beacause the interface does not allow me to bring it back to "zero". It'd be good the interface be improved to allow me to correct my mistake. It only allows me to flip my grading back to "thumb up". The post/question is fair but does not add any value to this thread, so does not deserve "thumb up". So I left it "thumb down".
-
ubrew12 at 05:59 AM on 6 June 20162016 SkS Weekly News Roundup #23
Regarding articles like 'Warming could boost carbon storage in Alaska's Forests': I expect, long term, the carbon equation in Northern Forests and permafrost areas would favor their being a net source. Entering an interglacial, when Earth tilts to cast more sunlight on the Northern Hemisphere, we know that global carbon dioxide levels increase after a few centuries. I expect much of this is coming from newly warmed Northern latitudes, like Alaska.
-
pongapundit at 04:36 AM on 6 June 2016Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
In my view, water vapor is effectively anti-greenhouse. Here is how. In 10k-40k feet height, water vapor in the atmosphere gets converted into tiny ice crystals. These water crystals floating in upper atmosphere reflect the sun rays away from the earth (back to the empty space) in the same way that cirrus clouds do. If the skies were clear, the sun rays in pristine form, falls on the ground and ocean, creating the appropriate differential of pressure and temperature to create conducive condition for precipitation (rain). Absence of a strong sunlight is what preventing timely rains. And this is what probably damaging the world weather systems.
The biggest question is how can water vapor go to upto 40k feet altitude? The culprit is — aviation exhaust (i.e. exhaust made by jet airplanes). The exhaust mainly contain CO2 + water vapor. We must cut down on water vapor emitted by air traffic if we want to save the planet's weather system.
Further reading:
http://phys.org/news/2005-12-probing-commercial-jet-traffic-affect.html#nRlvhttp://phys.org/news/2011-03-airplane-contrails-worse-co2-emissions.html
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed links: This does not really belong here. Replies to this thread please where the Burkhardt and Karcher paper is already discussed in comments.
-
KR at 04:09 AM on 6 June 2016How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
nodeniro - See the link that John Cook gave in his response to that very comment by WAG, pointing to Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming. We start from the science that indicates CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas (spectroscopy, atmospheric structure, thermodynamics), and from there correlations are useful for determining exactly how much of an influence CO2 is relative to other forcings, such as solar changes, aerosols, land use, etc. Correlation without causation (common in climate change denier arguments searching for alternatives) is an empty assertion, but correlation with causation is a valid tool - when, as here, it's backed by physics.
-
nodeniro at 01:49 AM on 6 June 2016How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
The number 2 comment by WAG exhibits a classical mistake of logic. The comment points to a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Then the comment asserts that causation is present, unless somebody proves otherwise.
-
KR at 01:32 AM on 6 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
scaddenp - From the first link I gave above:
Right-wing authoritarianism is characterized by obedience to authority, moral absolutism, racial and ethnic prejudice, and intolerance and punitiveness towards (those perceived as) dissidents and deviants.
That's certainly the attitudes Trump supporters have been showing. I think the appeal is the _simplicity_ and clarity of the leaders claims, regardless of any other value such as being true, or even sane.
-
scaddenp at 17:17 PM on 5 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
Haze, I dont know that imparts a better impression of Trump supporters. It seems that he has made it okay to be a misogynist, racist bigot and violent into bargain. I dont drink latte and could only be considered "leftie" in extreme parts of the world (maybe some midwest States but I dont know the USA), but I would much rather sit down with them then those trapped in history with attitudes that have had only negative impact on humanity. You seriously think political parties should be paying court to such dinosaurs? Concerns about jobs and uneasy about change, I can understand. Racism and tribalism masquerading as christianity, I cannot.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:16 PM on 5 June 2016Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2C
GreenHearted@5,
Hopefully you are not expecting climate scientists to 'create a solution'.Climate scientists develop and provide advancements of information and understanding (including clearer understanding of the likely consequences of 1.5C and 2C warming).
All of the world's wealthiest people and political leaders are the ones to demand a solution from.
As a minimum there should be powerful popular demands for all of those wealthy powerful supposed leaders of global humanity to declare that the only legitimate people with wealth or power are the ones who can prove their actions have promoted the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all of humanity into the almost eternal future humanity could enjoy on this amazing planet.
The lack of popular demand for that type of leadership is the real problem.
A related problem is that getting away with less acceptable behaviour is almost always more profitable and cheaper (the one getting away with being least acceptable has a temporary competitive advantage, temporary for as long as they can get away with it). That fact makes it easier to drum up popular support for understood to be less acceptable behaviour than it is to gain support for more responsible behaviour that develops a gift of a better future for the benefit of future generations.
One of the most galling evaluations performed by supposed leaders pretending to look like they care about this issue is the comparison of the perceived lost opportunity for the wealthy in the current generation to avoid imposing costs on future generations. The objective of such evaluations is to create the impression that it is OK to impose costs on future generations if the future costs as evaluated by today's generation will be equal to or less than the perceived lost opportunity of today's generation of greedy callous opportunists (which is obviously unacceptable when it is actually thought about - negative impacts on future generations are inexcusable, regardless of temporary developed tastes for regional popular support of such clearly unacceptable actions).
So climate scientists are not responsible for coming up with a solution. Leaders need to be required to prove they are pursuing valid solutions - proven valid based on the constantly improved best understanding of what is going on and how to advance humanty to a lasting better future for all.
-
KR at 12:34 PM on 5 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
Haze - Actually, Trump supporters are best characterized by one common trait, that of the authoritarian mindset; a belief in absolute obedience to authority. Linked with simplistic thinking, intolerance of ambiguity, and racial prejudice, it is the sole statistically significant variable linked to support for Trump. See articles on this link here and here, as well as many others.
Unfortunately, this trait in a leader bodes poorly for issues with shades of gray, adherence to constitutions, and for that matter the rule of law - many of his statements would lead straight to constitutional violations, interference with the judicial branch, and for that matter foreign policies that could be described as war crimes (stating we should just attack the families of those in ISIS, which would be an illegal order to the military). Simplistic absolute statements (particularly those with little relation to reality, such as Trumps - he seems willing to say absolutely anything to appeal to whoever is in front of him) don't do well with the shades of gray and complexities of actual life and politics. While spouting such simplistic statements seems appealing to those who feel disenfranchised, it's no way to run a country.
Seriously, this is a man who in a national debate went on about the size of his genitalia. Perhaps not the best choice to lead the US...
-
william5331 at 07:20 AM on 5 June 2016Greenland’s Melt Season Started Nearly Two Months Early
It is alwas significant when weather events exceed previous records or occur outside previous time boundaries. Incidentally, have you seen the Mana Loa Carbon dioxide results for April. They are 4.16C above the previous April. It remains to be seen if this will continue. We should have the results for May in a day or two.
-
GreenHearted at 03:12 AM on 5 June 2016Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2C
The IPCC assessments have been projecting the impacts of 1ºC to 5ºC since the Third Assessment in 2001 at least. The 2007 AR4 made it totally obvious that impacts above 1ºC will be highly dangerous, >1.5ºC disastrous, and >2ºC catastrophic. The Stern Commission in 2006 also included projected impacts of 1-5ºC. Given that 2ºC was never a scientific limit, and that the most vulnerable nations practically begged for a 1.5ºC limit (and some a 1ºC limit) in Copenhagen in 2009 (ahem, six years ago), why has 1.5ºC come as such a surprise to climate change scientists?
I just read a quote from Slavoj Žižek, a Slovenian philosopher: "Love is what makes sex more than masturbation." I am not feeling the love from scientists these days, if you get my drift. If +2ºC is really super bad, and +1.5ºC is only slightly less bad, why on Earth do scientists need "a comprehensive overview of the differences in climate impacts at these levels" or more "robust" science on 1.5?
What, pray tell, is keeping climate change scientists from declaring their love and getting on with the task of helping us attain zero carbon emissions?
-
Trevor_S at 22:06 PM on 4 June 2016Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2C
Professor Kevin Anderson presentation on this
-
denisaf at 21:16 PM on 4 June 2016Scientists debate experimenting with climate hacking to prevent catastrophe
Irreversible rapid climate change and ocean acidification and warming is under way. Reducing the rate of emission of fossil fuels with only slow down the increase in these processes. Adapting measures to cope with the consequences, such as sea level rise, should be a widely adopted policy.
-
denisaf at 17:24 PM on 4 June 2016Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2C
"Both 2C and 1.5C are explicitly mentioned in the Paris agreement as potential upper limits for global warming since the preindustrial era," is in the article. There can be no limit to global warming (or ocean acidification and warming despite the views freely expressed. The greenhouse emissions have already put in train an irreversible process. Reducing the rate of emissions will only slow down the rate of warning slightly with absorption in the oceans continuing to impact on the atmospheric concentration level.
-
Haze at 17:02 PM on 4 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
In marked contrast to most commentators both here and in the wider community, Janet Albrechtsen in todays Weekend Australian (http://tinyurl.com/j5al372) has looked at the reasons for Trump polling so well across the US. This comment of hers sums up the approach of many to Trump "
"Rather than depicting Trump supporters as angry channel surfing reality TV deadbeats, what about explaining to Australians the genuine concerns of millions of American voters? And when will the regular Sunday morning snickering about Trump on Insiders give way to thoughtful analysis?" Good for Albrechtsen who has considered the reasons for Trumps success an approach to which I referred in my comment @9 made some time ago. There are many in many Western countries, who are sick of the politicsl correctness enforced by the "latte sipping left" and who feel entirely abandoned by their major political parties"
-
Tom Curtis at 14:46 PM on 4 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
A slight ammendment to my preceding post. The version of the Global Warming Art holocene temperature record with more recent times to the right was available from Global Warming Art from as early as July 2007, even if it was not uploaded to wikipedia till 2010. Also, Easterbrook's cut down version appears as early as May 2010. My sentence immediately preceding the graph above is therefore false. It remains the case that he took that graph and modified it to remove all information indicating warmer modern temperatures, and falsely indicated a very low modern temperature on his version of the graph.
In fact, the "present day temperature" shown on Easterbrook's graph, is just the final data point on the Global Warming Art graph, and represents a gaussian smooth of the data with a 300 year resolution, for the year 1950. As such, it is representative of the temperatures in the century prior to 1950, and not representative of the temperatures after 1950.
-
Ken in Oz at 13:38 PM on 4 June 2016Study Helps Explain Sea Ice Differences at Earth's Poles
Whilst this provides some understanding of the dynamics of Antarctic sea ice formation, I'm not clear on how it would explain growth of winter sea ice extent.
I have thought land ice melt and salinity were likely to be playing a significant part; are measurements of salinity of ocean water around Antarctica being taken and are they being related to land ice melt and sea ice? It seems reasonable to me that outflow of fresh water, which is less dense than saline sea water, would tend to concentrate near the surface and, having a warmer freezing point, would freeze more readily but empirical evidence would be very welcome.
-
John Hartz at 13:21 PM on 4 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
Donald Trump makes people across the U.S. political spectrum quite nervous — and with good cause.
For example...
Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.
Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.
“Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asked Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.
With five months to go before Election Day, Mr. Trump has already said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics. He has encouraged rough treatment of demonstrators.
His proposal to bar Muslims from entry into the country tests the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom, due process and equal protection.
And, in what was a tipping point for some, he attacked Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Federal District Court in San Diego, who is overseeing two class actions against Trump University.
Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat.
“They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,” Mr. Trump said. “O.K.? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case?”
Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say, Adam Liptak, New York Times, June 3, 2016
-
chriskoz at 10:58 AM on 4 June 2016Scientists debate experimenting with climate hacking to prevent catastrophe
funglestrumpet@7,
Your "sober" approach that considers the "extinction the human species" and ignores everything else is akin to destroying the entire global civilisation - all 7b individuals - leaving just a few thousand hunters-gatherers - all that is required to maintain our species. You probably don't realise the meaning of your post overwise you would not have posted it. Please try to realise next time.
Reading, needless to say arguing with such nonsense is a waste of everybody's time.
-
chriskoz at 09:49 AM on 4 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
John@4
Let's also remember that US president signs all decisions of Congress into law. And he can refuse to sign anything that he does not like. that's a lot of power, even though Congree can subsequently overrule his refusal under some conditions. E.g. let's keep in mind that Obama famouly stopped KXL pipeline using that very power and Congress did not have enough numbers to overrule him. Had Trump been a president at the time, he would hapilly have signed it, and we would have KXL flowing full steam now.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:36 AM on 4 June 2016Donald Trump wants to build a wall – to save his golf course from global warming
John Hartz @14, much as I despise Donald Trump, I do not think he is literally insane. Therefore I do not think he would use the nuclear option.
What he is likely to do, if elected, is to trash the system of alliances that the US has built up since WW2 and which contribute to it being so dominant a global power. He will alienate allies, and trash the USA's chances of significant international cooperation on any point. He may also involve the US in conventional wars on, essentially, a whim.
Of greater concern is what he is likely to do the US economy. The reforms he will push, and which will likely gain support in a Republican dominated congress, will distort the economy in favour of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, workers, and the poor. He may bring back some manufacturing by trashing NAFTA and bullying Mexico, but the real manufacturing deficit of the US is relative to the Asian giants (particularly China and Japan) who hold a significant portion of US foreign debt. If he pushes too hard, they may decide to retaliate by closing of the easy credit the US currently relies on, forcing a US depression worse than that of 1927. I don't think it will come to that, but if follows that Trump will not revive US manufacturing as he claims he will.
Trump cannot make America great again, as it still is great. He can certainly impoverish and weaken the US relative to Russia and China, and that is the most likely outcome of his policies.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:20 AM on 4 June 2016Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
Mike Hillis @63, point by point:
1) The quote by Monckton at the head of the article is simply an example of the myth being propogated. It is not, as you suggest, part of an evidentiary chain other than to the point that the myth exists, and is propogated by at least some climate change deniers. What is more, by claiming that it is a fabrication that "the "myth" ... is based on a comment made by Monkton", you imply that Monckton has been misquoted. Following the link for the quote and scrolling down to the second box on page three proves that to not be the case. Monckton was not misquoted. He has used the myth. But the article made no claim that Monckton is the only denier to use the myth, or that he was the primary person to propogate the myth, contrary to your suggestion.
Monckton also explicitly ties his opinion to the GISP 2 record in another document (PDF) where he produces this graph:
He captions it, "Warmer than today: most of the period since the end of the last Ice Age has been
warmer than the present by several degrees Celsius" and writes:"Seen in the geological perspective of the last 17,000 years, the 300 years of recent warming, nearly all of which must have been natural, for we could not have had any significant influence except in the past 25 years, are manifestly insignificant."
The comment about the 300 years shows clearly that he is treating the terminal period of the graph, which actually ends in 1855, as ending in approximately 1995.
As a side note, he (not unusually) mislabels the source of the data, which is Cuffey and Clow (1997).
2) You also dispute that Monckton got the idea from Easterbrook, but Easterbrook propogated the idea in 2008 (PDF), where he produced this graph the below graph, saying:
"The global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of at least ten sudden, profound climate reversals over the past 15,000 years (Figure 5)"
Again, the graph is claimed to depict "global warming during the past century" even though the last data point on the graph in fact occurs in 1855.
Easterbrook even predates Monckton on the "some 9,100 of the past 10,500 years were warmer" meme, with an article on WUWT in December, 2010 claiming that:
"So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list."
As a side note, I am puzzled as to how he determines that ranking. Using the GISP 2 temperature data cached by Alley, from 8,905 to 8,915 of the 10,500 years BP in that record are warmer than the terminal data point. For Easterbrook to gain his ranking, he must conclude that 2010 was significantly cooler than the year he considered to be 1905.
As a further side note, the 2010 article by Easterbrook is the one discusses by Gareth Renowden above.
3) No claim is made in the OP that Easterbrook came to his conclusion as the result of just one study. The claim that he did so is false, but the only fabrication involved is your attribution of that claim to the OP.
4) You claim it is absurd that Easterbrook, as a geologist, did not know that Before Present refers to before 1950 unless otherwise specified, but in the 2010 article, his reproduction of the Alley data clearly labels the x axis "Years before present (2000 AD)", thereby indicating that he took "present" in this data to refer to 2000, not 1950. So far as I am aware, he still does so.
5) Regardless of his reasons, the paper trail clearly shows Easterbrook labeling the data that terminated in 1855 as "present global warming" thereby indicating the tail of that graph to be the warming during the 20th century (see graph above). Later he clearly labelled that data on an axis for years BP, glossed as being 2000 with a final data point at 95 years BP, ie, 1905 according to his axis.
To summarize, the purported fabrications are easilly proved to be true from the paper trail, except for two cases where the "fabrication" consists entirely in your misrepresenting the OP.
Your record on "the facts" is equally poor. It is true that, but entirely irrelevant, that the Holocene was labelled long before Easterbrook was born. The studies of Holocene temperatures that lead to the "spaghetti graphs", however, are all recent (last thirty years or so), and the spaghetti graph you used does not come from a peer reviewed paper, and was originally produced in 2005. Easterbrook has in fact used that graph, as you would know if you followed the links to the original version of the article, and back to prior history. However, he first used the current version of the graph (produced on the 19th of July, 2010, less than a week before he used it, but only after considerable editing to make it look like this:
Compared to the original, you will note that he has removed the "spaghetti". More importantly, he has also removed the indication of the 2004 temperature, the inset showing recent proxies, together with the rapidly rising instrumental record. That is, he has removed any indication that modern temperatures are in fact higher than those shown. He does not note that the zero point on the axis is "mid 20th century average temperature", but instead inserts a line approximately 0.3 C below the mid 20th century average which he deceptively labels "Present day temperature". In all, his treatment of this graph is much worse than his treatment of the Alley 2000 data, and cannot be construed as anything other than a deliberate attempt to deceive his audience.
It is, however, extraordinarily unlikely that Easterbrook, who obtained his graduate degree in 1958, saw any spaghetti graph of Holocene temperatures in highschool (none having existed back then).
Finally, the graph you cite clearly shows even mid 20th century temperatures to have been warmer than the bulk of the Holocene, while late 20th century temperatures were warmer than the multidecadal average over the entire Holocene.
In short, your "facts" are fictions. In some cases ridiculous fictions you invented without basis. In others, fictions you invented in direct contradiction to known evidence - indeed, evidence presented in the OP in one case. Skeptical Science is not a form where you are permited to just spin tissues of fabrication. You are expected to support your claims with facts, something you have signally failed to do at any point in this discussion. It is also hoped (though not required) that you change your views if fae moderators take a dim view of any further unsupported claims, or gish gallops by you.
Prev 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 Next
