Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Comments 2501 to 2550:
-
BaerbelW at 04:35 AM on 17 March 2023The Big Picture
A question for those who seem to at least somewhat doubt the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change: did you notice the glossary entry for that and follow the link to the explainer? If not, here is the direct link https://sks.to/consensus-explainer. Perhaps read that before commenting again.
-
John Mason at 03:55 AM on 17 March 2023The Big Picture
re #23, that's very elequantly written, Philippe.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:26 AM on 17 March 2023The Big Picture
I see all of the familiar red flags of BS with Jason's posts. Attempting to present "the science" as something vague and abstract is a major one.
The science is as far from a metaphysical concept as can be. It is composed of a very large numbers of scientific studies and articles, peer-reviewed and published in science publications, with methods, data and results. All of these, when considered as a big picture, point in a definite direction. The scientific consensus, as I have remarked many times before is not just agreement between experts' opinions. It is mostly a convergence of scientific research results, that experts are familiar with because they are experts. From there, major principles can be established, that are no longer a matter of debate, or not to the extent that would have major consequences.
The attempt at establishing "factions" has for objective to give the appearance that reality is dependent on what camp we think we belong to. That is the ultimate fraud. This is the reason why there has been a push for a "blue team-read team" approach by some, using what is essentially lawyers' skills to make a case where there is not one at all. They know they can manipulate an audience effectively and make them not just believe that down is up but even fight for it. Heck these days, the AI bots mentioned higher could possibly do this even more effectively than sleazy lawyers, they only would have to have access to all the mind manipulating techniques used by advertisers, marketers and said lawyers to fool people.
-
Bart Vreeken at 02:57 AM on 17 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Pfff, it looks like knowledge of psychology is more useful here then knowledge of Antarctica and climate change. How to react? A person called 'One Planet only forever' makes his or her own analyzation about 'people like me'. But isn't even willing to tell his or her own name. Why is that? I think an open discussion without hide-and-seek is more effectful and respective. About my motivation: my only motivation is trying to understand Antarctica and sharing information on that. And discussing that, but in a positive way. OK, lets stay on topic.
We had a discussion about the the collapse of the Conger glacier's ice shelf. Here's an article on Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019. In this period the ice shelves around Antarctica have gained a modest 0.4 %, or 5,304.5 km2 the study says. The study does not include the last three years. A low sea ice extent won't be good for the ice shelves, so I think we can expect that they lost some of there area.
egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1087/egusphere-2022-1087.pdf
And then a rectification. I made calculations on the total discharge of Antarctica, based on the Surface Mass Balance (SMB) and the GRACE data. But the SMB calculated here also includes the ice shelves, and that part does not count for the mass change of the ice sheet. So, the SMB for the grounded ice will be less, and the discharge of the grounded ice will be less. In the literature I found numbers like 1750 Gt/yr.
Moderator Response:[BL] I tried to give gentle advice - which applied to all - but now I have to shift to moderator role.
I have snipped the portions of this comment that violate the Comments Policy.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:50 AM on 17 March 2023The Big Picture
Peppers @19... "Which will top out in about 3-5 more inches to correlate it with sea leveling."
And your citations to the research that supports this statement are... where?
Currently the projections suggest over 1 meter of SLR by 2100 and more to come in the centuries to follow.
Remember, the last time the earth had over 400ppm CO2 we had an ice-free planet. We are in uncharted territory stretching back a few million years.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:46 AM on 17 March 2023The Big Picture
Jason @14... "That means pulling up above the canopy to a point of view where we can see the consensus faction and their beliefs alongside the other major factions and their beliefs."
The consensus is precisely an act of "pulling up above the canopy..."
The entire point of a scientific consensus is to measure the broad assessments of a wide range of experts. You know, people who have PhD's and study the subject matter every day of their working lives? Those people overwhelmingly accept that, it's real, it's us, it's bad, we need to act rapidly to fix it, and it's not "game over."
If you want to be inclusive of the minority position that this could all be wrong, that's fine. You know, the standard treatments for cancer could also be wrong and herbal medicine just might save Uncle Bob from an early grave. You can never fully eliminate that possibility.
There are definitely people out there who are going to vigorously try to convince your uncle to use herbs and not listen to his oncologist. They are non-experts in oncology. They have strong opinions on oncology. Bob is more that welcome to risk taking their advice. At the end of the day, the likelihood of the oncologist being wrong are substantially lower than the herbalist.
I peg you as the angry herbalist in this analogy.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:33 AM on 17 March 2023The Big Picture
Peppers @17, paragraph 3...
Likewise, lately I've been trying to drink more water on a daily basis to stay better hydraded. It's working very well. I feel much more healthy for it.
That doesn't mean I can breathe underwater and start living like a fish.
Yours is a climate denier canard from long past that's been debunked a million times over. No one is claiming that humanity hasn't benefitted from the use of fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels have provided a cheap access to energy. It's the access to energy that has benefitted humanity in so many ways. That energy can—and increasingly is—being supplied through cleaner/cheaper methods with renewable energy sources.
This classic argument is the same as complaining about the advent of automobiles since horses have done so much for us over the course of human history.
-
peppers at 23:50 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Hi John!
I think making such statements at a hair burning level of urgency to be non-science based, saying cities must be moved. There are measurements of an inch a decade in the sea rise and if some levee’s must be installed, at least that approach is better than the truly impossible approach of slowing the rise of Co2 down to below the documentable increase of our species. Which will top out in about 3-5 more inches to correlate it with sea leveling.
There are other myths about this topic which are added to small scientific findings that lay people have layered into inappropriate conclusions, which exaggerate or awfulize this phenomenon. Not always on purpose, but due consideration is called for when found.Its real. We are in a loop. But just as a rise in Co2 being an unexpected consequence of our quest for better health, we see nature being full of cause and effects we cannot see. And what we cannot see we cannot model as well.
-
John Mason at 21:54 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
@ Peppers #17: adaptation gets very costly indeed when you eventually have to relocate all the world's low-lying cities, does it not?
-
peppers at 21:38 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
I appreciate this summary being addressed again in this way.
My take is that Co2 is rising as measured and it is human caused. You can overlay the increase from 1B to 8B in population over any of these 'hockey puck' graphs and the more people-more emisions conclusions are solid for me.
The origin of the issues makes all the difference, and the premise that folks shy away from the historic population boom being voiced because there is nothing that can really be done about it, is non scientific.
The crisis? Humanity succeeded in mass shelter, food and medicine. Antibiotics in the last 100 years! Infant mortality has dropped from 400 per thousand ( several hundred years ago) to 5.5 per thousand. More are born and huge % more remain living! We suceeded!
The modeling ( we love modeling here) by the U.N. is this rises until reaching 10.5B about the end of this century, and then begins to decrease. That is when we will see Co2 level and fall. Meanwhile this push to curb Co2 efforts cannot even keep up with the population rise continuance. The US adds the population of California again, about 2055.
I am responding to the culminating comment, based on no science whatsoever, in the above article: "What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?"
My response would be to aid people in adaption to this. Any nations greatest resource is people, and the lowest countries of the world gain the most population by this dynamic of population boom. The premise that,"However, the negatives will almost certainly outweigh the positives, by a long shot." This further added statement with no science whatsoever attached helps highlight how unconsidered the whole picture is presented here.
-
Eclectic at 18:16 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
JasonChen @14 ,
your comment seems far better suited to politics than science.
If you have a valid point to make, then you should explain it clearly. Otherwise you risk sounding very much like a ChatGTP artificial intelligence generator of prose. (Something I probably wouldn't have considered 12 months ago ! )
-
John Mason at 17:59 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Jason, that last post contradicts itself. If there's a scientific consensus about something, that means people doing the science have long stopped arguing about the core principles. There may be other "factions" outside of science, for example creationists who dispute evolution. But once you look at the evidence, their views are simply opinion, not evidence-based. That is an important distinction. Evidence is not about belief: it's a hard factual record of the physical world that can be deciphered, with varying degrees of difficulty.
-
JasonChen at 17:42 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
I may perceive the goal of the article differently than you gentlemen. A big picture review should remind us of the context surrounding our day to day conversations. That means pulling up above the canopy to a point of view where we can see the consensus faction and their beliefs alongside the other major factions and their beliefs.
-
John Mason at 16:50 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Jason #5:
If you look at the previous version of this summary, you should be able to recognise it's several years out of date WRT the observational evidence. The latter's what was updated. That observational evidence continues to be consistent as it illustrates a steady rise in CO2 and a noisy climb in temperature as other natural factors wax and wane.
That atmospheric CO2 acts like a planetary thermostat is such basic science that one can place it alongside e.g. evolution, gravity and plate tectonics. We know all of these things exist and it's the minutiae of them that attract modern research. To go against such basic concepts is to say, "I'm going to ignore all of the evidence collected over the past two centuries, because I can make something else up". Anyone can do that, but it's unlikely to get them very far! -
Eclectic at 16:43 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
JasonChen @11 and prior,
If I understand Rob Honeycutt correctly, he is suggesting that you should discuss the topic in a pragmatic way (rather than metaphysical).
As the good Douglas Adams says, we could expand the conversation to include "Life, the Universe, and Everything" . . . but then the conversation becomes effete & ultimately pointless. And the Big Picture becomes too big to see.
#Being a follower of American political discourse, I note that in the past 8-10 years particularly, many extremist politicians have developed a strong tendency to talk unceasingly during an interview ~ continuous gabble leaving no room for actual transfer of useful information (or the actual answering of questions put to them). It seems to be a type of verbal kaleidoscopic camouflage, intended to avoid addressing any issue of importance.
In discussing science-based topics, we should recognize & resist any attempt to drown the central subject.
-
JasonChen at 14:45 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Yeah, I think the big picture is more complicated than received scientific truth which one either accepts or rejects. Which is why I offered the framing I did. Feel free to pen your own version.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:29 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
The big picture is the overwhelming body of science. Institutions, whether or not they agree with the body of science, are functionally irrelevant. Right there your forest and branches metaphor breaks down.
"It's hard to reason about such a metaphysical construction as 'the science.'" Sorry, science isn't a metaphysical construction. It's physics, not metaphysics.
"Seems to me language like 'accepting fundamental physics' makes it hard to do justice to the big picture..." Can we just acknowledge here that you reject basic physics? That seems to be where this discussion is headed.
-
JasonChen at 13:26 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
The institutions are the forest, James Hansen a single branch on one tree. To decribe the big picture, one must stay zoomed out.
Does the science inform the institutions or vice-versa? It's hard to reason about such a metaphysical construction as "the science." Among us mortals and our institutions, influence flows in many directions.
Seems to me language like "accepting fundamental physics" makes it hard to do justice to the big picture, for the same reason a fundamentalist Christian perspective makes it hard to paint the big picture of religion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:51 PM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Jason @7... That the majority of "institutions" accept fundamental physics is not a bad thing.
From your post @5 it sounded to me as if you were saying "institutions" were informing the science rather than the other way around.
-
JasonChen at 11:54 AM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Rob @6... Institutional consensus seems pretty overt, no? The UN. Every university. Every government. Every corporation, including big oil. Every mainstream news outlet. The Federal Reserve. The NFL. Leonardo DiCaprio.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:16 AM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
JasonChen @5... Where do you come to the conclusion that any of this is based on "[an] institutional consensus has formed that higher CO2 will cause higher temperatures"?
That higher levels of CO2 will cause the planet to warm is just basic physics. The scientific consensus is merely the result of a high level of confidence in that physics.
-
JasonChen at 11:01 AM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Is the rebuttal project the best home for this article? It lacks the tight focus of other topics, and its length and graphyness limit its persuasive power.
Even so it gives us just the view from the IPCC's window, which doesn't quite fulfill the title's promise. The big picture is 8 billion people are emitting more CO2 for all sorts of good reasons and are set to emit a great deal more. An institutional consensus has formed that higher CO2 will cause higher temperatures, and those claiming to be following the science cite a variety of evidence consistent with that view. They advocate sweeping changes to global power generation and every other aspect of society but face resistance from developing countries, dissident scientists, distrustful conservatives, consumers, and other factions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:31 AM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Gordon @ 3:
No.
The only "warming estimate" for the future that is presented in this blog post is "We know that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv (at the beginning of 2023 we are at 420 ppmv) will cause 2–4.5°C of warming."
There is no time frame in that estimate. It refers to an unspecified future time where CO2 has doubled. It does not say when it expects us to reach that CO2 level - or even assess a probability that we will.
Scenarios such as RCP8.5 generate an expected timing of the rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and you need to apply a climate model to those atmospheric composition scenarios to get an estimate of temperature rise over the period of the scenario. This blog post does not do that.
And the estimates of 2-4.5°C of warming for doubling of CO2 are largely unaffected by the temporal pathway to reach 2xCO2.
The only other use of the term "estimate" in the blog post is to do with historical values of global temperature, based on observations. Different groups use different analysis methods to "estimate" the global temperature trends, using measurements. This is not dependent on any of the climate models that are used to "estimate" future climates.
So, unless you are thinking of some other "warming estimate" that is not actually presented here...
-
Gordon21829 at 08:53 AM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
Given that the "business-as-usual" case (aka RCP 8.5) has been downgraded to a low likelyhood by the IPCC do the warming estimates here need to be revised ? According to some researchers the new pathway will track more along the lines of RCP 3.4
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:31 AM on 16 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Before I get forced to switch to moderator role, can we please take it easy on speculating about Bart's motives?
I also wonder what his end goal is in posting here. I've tried to get him to be specific about what his point is (as have others), and he seems reluctant to do so. Hopefully that will change (but I'm not optimistic).
-
CROM_The_Obliderator_of_idiocy at 02:48 AM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
I also want to declare that my username is consciously mispelled so as to be legible by the dyslectics of the forum (who, I suspect, are the majority in here).
I also added a "been" in the "was always associated" for the same reason (in reality because of a lack of an edit button).
But, Not even an edit button here?
I guess it suits the authors' general mentality of not retracting any of the nonsense they spew.Moderator Response:[BL] I want to declare that you are really off to a bad start here. Before posting again, I strongly suggest that you read the Comment Policy.
-
CROM_The_Obliderator_of_idiocy at 02:41 AM on 16 March 2023The Big Picture
""What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?"
>>We haven't developed such science and warming was ALWAYS been associated with flourishing of every life form on earth. Including penguins.
Moderator Response:[BL] Such broad sweeping claims on your part with not a shred of evidence to support them does not do your credibility any good.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:27 AM on 16 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
I agree with Rob Honeycutt's evaluation that Bart Vreeken appears "...to be looking for reasons to wish away the current climate crisis."
I also agree that "Trying to politely minimize the problem is a form of denial."
I refer to the ways that people like Bart make their claims as versions of "Passionate Pursuit of Positive Perceptions" which evades or delays learning that "developed desires and beliefs are incorrect understandings that are harmful (some misunderstandings can be helpful, but most misunderstandings are harmful in some ways)".
People can have many motivations for not seeing (or seeking) the evidence of harm done and failing to understand that harm done is not excused by benefits obtained. But they share a desire for the benefits they hope to get from the continued popularity of harmful misunderstandings, which includes evading reducing the harmfulness of the things they want to benefit from and evading having to make amends for harm done that they benefited from.
An interesting question for someone like Bart Vreeken would be:
How much sea level rise should the current population pay today to improve the Flood mitigation systems of the Netherlands to be able to deal with the future problem?
A Pursuer of positive perceptions may try to claim that nothing, or very little, needs to be done to improve the flood protection of the Netherlands. Or they may argue that the problem is not being caused by continued fossil fuel use. Or they may claim that Others are causing the problem. Or they may claim that "Future generations" will be able to do what needs to be done (at no cost to the people who benefited from causing the need for the future attempts to deal with and repair of the harm done).
A closing comment: The Promotion of Positive Perceptions that are harmful misunderstandings is one of the most harmful things a 'supposedly higher status, more influential person' can do. There clearly needs to be more immediate and effective "Governing/Limiting" of the behaviour of higher status people who pursue and promote harmful misunderstandings. And the higher status people need to lead that helpful corrective Governing/Limiting of harm done, or lose their higher status and influence.
People like Bart are not the major problem. Higher status people arguing like Bart does rather than helping people like Bart learn to be less harmful and more helpful are the major problem.
-
MA Rodger at 01:56 AM on 16 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart Vreeken @551,
The Antarctic SMB & the GRACE anomaly don't seem to be showing much. It did occur to me that the SMB plot you presented upthread @533 does show some similarity to the average annual SIE as the years with a positive SMB anomaly are also the years when the average SIE drops below the long-term average. (Okay 2021/22 didn't quite regain the average. Ave annual SIE in JAXA 2003-22 is 11.61 sq km). You juxtapose an SMB graphic with Antarctic SIE annual minimum graphic @546. (Note JAXA 2023 min was 1.95M sq km.) The annual average (change from previous year) provides apparently a better match to SMB than does the annual minimums. Thus the SEI Change-From-Previous-Year from the JAXA data run (sq km):-
2004,105000
2005,-266000
2006,-252000
2007,245000
2008,562000
2009,-177000
2010,98000
2011,-633000
2012,523000
2013,531000
2014,236000
2015,-365000
2016,-1192000
2017,-466000
2018,251000
2019,-140000
2020,719000
2021,17000
2022,-817000 -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:45 AM on 15 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart... "Sleeping giant" implies (and the research is showing) this is not a small amount of sea level rise we're talking about. Levies in The Netherlands have worked for centuries because, in the past, we didn't face such threats as sea level rise from a rapidly warming climate.
When you say "the risk is not so high," based on all the research I've read, I would have to differ. Based on the article John just posted, this should be very clear. The risk, particularly for places like exactly where you live, are in severe peril in the coming century and beyond.
Likewise, Florida in the US is facing a similar crisis. Within the next couple of decades property in most of southern Florida is going to become uninsurable. That is a big f-ing deal!
What this conversation come down to is, you seem to be looking for reasons to wish away the current climate crisis. I can promise you, the "interesting" items you're finding are not indications the problem is small or far in the future. The problem is now. The problem is severe. The problem is going to continue to get worse for at very least the next 20-30 years until we can get the entire global economy off of fossil fuels.
Trying to politely minimize the problem is a form of denial.
-
ubrew12 at 05:34 AM on 15 March 2023At a glance - What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
You mean stealing someone else's private communications, sifting through thousands of them to pick out a single sentence to broadcast, without context, to the rest of the World, resulted in an inaccurate portrayal of reality? I must say, I didn't see that coming... (/s)
-
Bart Vreeken at 05:06 AM on 15 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
"Did you happen to notice the title of the article John posted?"
Well I did! I have the strange habit to start with the title when I read an article ;-). And here it's about sea level rise. That item has my attention. I live in The Netherlands, which is a very low lying country. Large parts of it have a certain risk for flooding, by the sea of by rivers. My own house is only at 10 centimetres above sea level! But for centuries, the land is well protected by dikes. So, the risk is not so very high. But we have to be prepared for the future. The land will sink further, the sea level will rise higher, the rainfall will be more irregular and so on. So yes, sea level rise is a big issue here.
About the article. The disappearance of the ice shelf itself is no good news. But when I look at the position of it, I don't see a lot of ice from the ice sheet that will be on the move now. That's my point.We have to monitor Antarctica very well, try to understand how it works, try to predict what will happen. But not with panic, that won't help us.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:09 AM on 15 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart... Did you happen to notice the title of the article John posted?
"Why East Antarctica is a 'sleeping giant' of sea level rise"
Don't you think that's interesting?
-
Bart Vreeken at 02:09 AM on 15 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Ah, thank you John Hartz @557
Yes, I noticed the article too. Indeed, the iceshelfs are the missing part of information and indeed, they are more vulnerable when the sea ice extent is low. But when we look at the position of the Conger's ice shelf (it's in the red circle on the map below) there is something strange. There isn't much inflow of ice from the ice sheet above. And when there isn't inflow, an ice shelf will disappear sooner or later. Maybe the pattern of the ice flow has changed during the years?
So, let's hope that the other ice shelfs are doing better. At least, the collapse of the Conger's ice shelf didn't influence the mass balance of the total ice sheet (the non-floating part) too much last year. It showed an increase of mass.
-
MA Rodger at 18:20 PM on 14 March 2023Climate Science Denial Explained
Foster @11,
The crux of this latest nonsense from our chum Anthony Willard Watts is to plot out global average temperature using a very long Y-axis so it appears as a flat line.
This is rather reminiscent of the 'thin red line' of aging climate-change-denying climatologist Dickie Lindzen who would plot the size of AGW-to-date onto a graph of annual max-min temperatures in Boston (where he worked) using the width of a red line.
Lindzen would then make some nonsense statement about the planet's average temperature always wobbling by several tenths of a degree at virtually all timescales (which isn't correct). At a presentation in the UK Houses of Parliament back in 2012, he candidly put it thus:-
Changes in the order of several tenths of a degree are always present at virtually all time scales. And obsessing on the details of this record is more akin to a spectator sport for tea-leaf reading than a serious contributor to scientific efforts.
Say, at least so far: if some day I should see some changes of twenty-times what I've seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable but nothing so far looks that way.So this so-called climatologist suggests a global temperature change of twenty-times 'what he's seen so far' is when climate change becomes "remarkable". Call that 20 x 1.5ºF=+30ºF=+16ºC. I think the word "uninhabitable" would have been a more appropriate adjective.
-
John Hartz at 12:01 PM on 14 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart @ 556:
"More information" does cometh rather quickly. The following in-depth artice was posted on BBC's Future feature yesterday:
Why East Antarctica is a 'sleeping giant' of sea level rise by Alec Luhn. Future, BBC, Mar 12, 2023
The lede for the above article:
Scientists once thought the East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough water to raise sea levels 52m (170ft), was stable. But now its ice shelves are beginning to melt.
A key pragraph from the article related to your comments on this thread:
Usually, glaciers move at a glacial pace. The speedy collapse of the Conger's ice shelf came after some of the most dramatically warm weather ever observed in Antarctica. For the first time since satellite monitoring began in 1979, the sea ice extent around Antarctica dropped below 2 million sq km (770,000 sq miles). Less sea ice means more waves battering the ice shelves in front of the glaciers. Massive fields of sea ice off of Adelie Land, Wilkes Land and Princess Elizabeth Land in East Antarctica completely disappeared.
-
Eclectic at 09:13 AM on 14 March 2023Climate Science Denial Explained
Foster @11 ,
Count me in ~ I, too, would love to know what virtues you see in that WattsUpWithThat blog article.
I confess to being a regular reader of WUWT blog ~ it has its amusing side, and despite WUWT 's prolific posts, it takes me little time to skim the daily avalanche (the trick is to skip through the rubbish). Most of the lead articles have a strong tinge of angry sourness & childishness. Rarely do I find an article containing some technical information of value.
And without scooping more than a ladle's worth of justified ad-hominems ~ I can say that the WUWT comments columns are even worse than the lead articles. The commenters do (in general) show a remarkable range of pathology . . . from scientific ignorance and delusional beliefs, through to extremist political axe-grinding. All wonderfully entertaining, if you have the stomach for it.
Foster, the WUWT article you mentioned has a humorous comment [about 4th from the top] by Nick Stokes , showing a graph depicting the change in the U.S. National Debt. Droll humor by Nick Stokes, exemplifying the absurdity of Anthony Watts's ideas. (Nick Stokes is always worth reading, for he is very rational & scientifically well-informed ~ he is the complete opposite of the Usual Denizens at WUWT. And they hate him for it ! )
[ The writer "Hot Sou" (mentioned @13 above) is pretty much banned at WUWT. She gets under Anthony Watts's skin ~ and IIRC he has threatened to take legal action against her. ]
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:26 AM on 14 March 2023Climate Science Denial Explained
Correction. Sou's "recent" post is from a couple of months ago.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:06 AM on 14 March 2023Climate Science Denial Explained
Foster @ 11:
I have not looked at anything over at WUWT in years, and I've never seen anyone post any information about what is available there to make it worth thinking that they have started posting anything even remotely connected to reality.
Perhaps you could put into your own words just what it is about that post that you think would give me a reason to look?
Someone who used to regularly debunk the crap from WUWT was Sou, over at her blog Hot Whopper. She has not been very active recently, but I just happened to take a look today. She has a new post up regarding GISS temperature data, etc. She does not specifically refer to WUWT, but perhaps you can read it and see if it answers your questions about the WUWT post. It may have been triggered by the recent WUWT post, or it may just be a coincidence in timing.
As Michael says, the world according to WUWT rarely changes. The bogosity is usually pretty predictable.
And I second the recommendation to Dr. Inferno's site. You need to be aware of Poe's Law before going there, though.
-
michael sweet at 03:40 AM on 14 March 2023Climate Science Denial Explained
Foster:
Fortunately Dr. Inferno at the Denial Depot site wrote a summary of this issue way back in November 2010. How thngs never change! They just blow up the Y axis and say there is no change.
How To Cook A Graph SkepticalScience.com Style
He even has Skeptical Science in the title of the post!! (Dr. Inferno is a tounge in cheek satire site). Unfortunately, Dr. Inferno has not posted since 2016. If anyone knows who Dr Inferno is tell him that his fans are waiting his next post with eagerness.
This is my favorite graph (link to blog post explaining the tilted baseline) from Dr Inferno showing that Arctic Sea Ice is increasing. Monckton actually used a graph in a presentation that had a tilted baseline like this.
-
Bart Vreeken at 02:00 AM on 14 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bob Loblaw, I'm afraid we don't get any further in the discussion. It's a pity. Lets see what more information comes to us in the coming time.
Have a nice day!
Bart.
-
John Hartz at 01:22 AM on 14 March 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
Michael Sweet: Thank you for tagging the CleanTechnica article about ICE and EV motor vehicles.
-
Foster at 00:36 AM on 14 March 2023Climate Science Denial Explained
Hi All! First post here but I came across a blog (anti climate change blog) called What's Up With That by Anthony Watts who made a recent post trying to disprove NASA GISS chart.
Here is a blog post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/12/new-wuwt-global-temperature-feature-anomaly-vs-real-world-temperature/
What do you all make of it? Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks! :)
-
michael sweet at 14:42 PM on 13 March 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10
This article at CleanTechnica.com gave interesting and hopeful data about the adoption of electric cars world wide. They document that the production of ICE cars peaked in 2017 and is now declining because battery electric cars are taking over the market.
In 2017 86 million ICE cars were sold and only 1 million battery and plug in hybrid cars were sold. In 2022 only 69 million ICE cars were sold while 10.4 million plug in cars were sold. About 7.4 million were battery only cars. Plug in vehicles were 26% of the market last year. It is expected that the electric market will substantially increase this year.
The more electric cars that are sold the less oil that will be burned in transportation. Combined with increasing electric power generation by renewables and the amount of carbon released every year will start to decrease. It is still far too low to achieve the 1.5 C goal. Everyone needs to push governments to stop fossil subsidies and increase renewable subsidies.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:09 PM on 13 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart @ 552:
The point in my comment at 534, responding to your first comment, was that it is a huge mistake to try to make extrapolations into the future from a short time period. We see it all the time: temperature (The Escalator), sea ice coverage, etc. People that want to believe a particular thing, and ignore the long-term trend by saying "look at this!" from a short period of data at the end of a noisy data set.
If you had followed the link to The Escalator, you would have seen that the very first sentence says:
One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate contrarians is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal.
That you choose to call it "a stupid graph" indicates that you still don't understand the error in drawing grandiose claims from short periods of data.
Now, you are saying "The result is interesting: there don't seem to be much correlation between SMB and discharge. Strange enough, in the last year with little sea ice the discharge was even less then normal."
No, this is not at all interesting. As has been said to you previously, relationships between precipitation, accumulation, glacier flow, discharge, and sea ice are not simple. Rob Honeycutt has posed a number of questions to you in comment 554 that are germane to the point. Unless you understand why those questions are important, and can begin to think of answers to them, you are not looking at the topic seriously.
The very first response I gave to you - the first paragraph - was:
What exactly is your point? The links between sea ice area and land ice mass are not simple, and have been discussed in the detailed sections of the blog post and earlier comments.
I suggest that you actually try doing some reading, starting with the blog post (both the basic and intermediate sections) and then through the numerous comments, and maybe then you'll have enough understanding to be able to engage in a "serious discussion".
The simple answer is that you seem to be expecting a simply answer and a simple relationship for a complex system, and you are simply wrong.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:18 AM on 13 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart... You're still claiming it's interesting without stating why it's interesting or what this possible correlation would imply. In my mind that doesn't make it interesting.
"As I said, I was hoping for a more serious discussion on this site."
You're hoping for a serious discussion on something that you are failing to seriously discuss. Does the correlation you're proposing extend outside of the past decade? Does it have any substantive implication for longer trends? What are the physics related to this proposed correlation? What are the dynamics of this process? You're going to have to offer up a lot more and get more clear on what you're discussing in order to have a more serious discussion.
-
Bart Vreeken at 07:11 AM on 13 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
"The average mass of the anomaly"
this must be: the average mass of the SMB.
-
Bart Vreeken at 07:09 AM on 13 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
As I said, I was hoping for a more serious discussion on this site.
What went wrong: in my first post I wanted to show the graph with the SMB as well. I must have done something wrong, for it didn't came up. Sorry for that. But this information is not so hard to find. MA Rodger succeeded in doing this, Bob Loblaw preferred to show a stupid graph about cherry-picking. Well, that's not the point here.
Anyhow. The correlation between SMB and mass change was not clear, so I put them together in one table. The SMB is calculated over November - November. The original graph gives the anomaly of the SMB. The average mass of the anomaly seems to be some 2700 Gigaton, so I added that to the anomaly. Then the discharge of the ice sheet can be calculated as the difference between the GRACE data and the SMB.
The result is interesting: there don't seem to be much correlation between SMB and discharge. Strange enough, in the last year with little sea ice the discharge was even less then normal.
An important thing could be that GRACE isn't measuring the total amount of ice, but only the amount above the sea level. So, increased calving from floating iceshelfs isn't noticed.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:22 AM on 11 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart @549... I'm not quite in agreement what you're stating is interesting. It just doesn't strike me as implying anything relevant.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:35 AM on 11 March 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Bart @ 546, 547, and 549:
When I am having a serious discussion with someone in the comments section here, I expect certain things:- That they stick consistently to one aspect of a discussion, without jumping randomly from one sub-characteristic to another.
- That when they refer to a figure, they are specific in explaining what part of the figure they are talking about.
- That when they provide a link to a paper, they explain which part of the paper they want someone to read (e.g., by using quotes or section numbers, or figure numbers) and why it is relevant.
- When they make multiple points, they give some indication that they are shifting gears and how the new point relates to the old point.
You've jumped from Grace data showing total mass, to links to papers discussing snowfall changes, to Surface Mass Balance, and back again - and it is all jumbled together in an incoherent mess.
In 546, you state, "I never said the the [sic] mass loss has stopped. (OK, last year incidentely) [sic]."
- The whole purpose of your original comment @ 533 was to draw attention to that "incidental" observation in Grace data, and to tie it to sea ice loss.
- In 537, you doubled down on the significance of that one year, and speculated about what might happen "in coming years". And linked to a paper that did not discuss Grace data at all.
- In 541 you drew attention to how that one "incidental" point had changed the average, and said that it "gave us a hint..." You referred back to that same paper that does not cover Grace data.
- In 544 you switched from Grace data in your original comment to discussions of SMB, without explaining, connecting, or justifying the change.
And now the primary evidence from your original comment (the 2022 Grace data) is dropped as if you just mentioned it "incidentely" [sic] and never meant it to be a claim that the mass loss had stopped?
I expected an honest discussion here, not a game of "Look, squirrel". And in 549 your response to Rob's request to explain what is "interesting" is basically a hand-waving speculation of maybes. If you are posting maybes so that you can backtrack and say things like "I never said the the [sic]mass loss has stopped", when that was the obvious implication of what you said, then it is impossible to have a serious discussion with you.
