Recent Comments

Prev  510  511  512  513  514  515  516  517  518  519  520  521  522  523  524  525  Next

Comments 25851 to 25900:

25851. factotum at 13:50 PM on 27 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 3
       

       I had occasion to write an article about 6 years ago that I called orwells boot. (As far as I can tell it is no. 1 or sometimes no.2 on all search engines.   http://factotum666.livejournal.com/829.html  The first line is:  Orwell's Boot: our inevitable? descent into tyranny

       I set forth a lot of information and logic that shows that evolution operates in such a way as to make people unwilling or unable to learn from any source other than their preferred authority.   You may also want to read the true believer by eric hoffer.

       I think that my article does a fairly good job of predicting Mr. Trump.  If we are going to address our most critical problems, we need to figure out how to tweak evolution, or work contrary to how nature works.  We are confronting large scale stupid.  Trump is capitalizing on that.    Not an easy task.   Logic will not work.  Frankly I see no solution.

       Our founding fathers were correct, and we ignored them.  Democracies suck and always fail.   We made a serious error when we removed any qualification  for the right to vote.   Consider this:   Give the customers of walmart the same voting rights as the share (stake) holders.  How long do you think that Walmart will survive?

25852. Digby Scorgie at 10:28 AM on 27 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51
       

       I had a look at the quotations of scientists and newspapers in the final link above.  With one exception, they are all quite reasonable and sensible.  The exception is the Wall Street Journal of 14 December 2015.  The final sentence of the quotation is enough to evoke homicidal feelings:

       The grandiose claims of triumph in Paris represent the self-interest of a political elite that wants more control over the private economy in the U.S. and around the world.

       To this my riposte is:

       The insensate rejection of science by the Wall Street Journal represents the self-interest of a corporate elite that wants more control over national governance in the US and around the world.

       On the one hand, there are the dire consequences of unmitigated climate change.  On the other hand, there is the propaganda campaign certain corporations and individuals have waged to sabotage any action designed to avert such change.  The item from the Wall Street Journal is an example.

       It is difficult to conceive of people so evil that they are willing to countenance the destruction of the planetary environment in the long-term — and human civilization with it — simply to maintain their wealth and power in the short-term.

       I hope the foregoing does not constitute a "political" or "ad-hominem" comment.  We are after all talking about people trying to stop others from averting a catastrophic future climate.  If my language seems too strong, I refer readers to the above-mentioned "homicidal feelings".

25853. howardlee at 23:55 PM on 26 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 3
       

       Thanks! With Scruggios (or Cruzios) vowing publically to derail the Paris agreement, denial still has plenty of poison in its tail. We may not ever reach the Scruggios of this world directly, but bit by bit hopefully we'll reach enough supporters, parents, sons and daughters, uncles and aunts, to point out that these emperors of denial lack a shred of scientific clothing. 

25854. Gestur at 23:11 PM on 26 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 3
       

       What a remarkably accomplished climate change re-creation of Dickens’ tale you have crafted here, Howard. I thought this last part was especially effective in achieving its end.

       Now if we could only get various Senators Scruggio (and others) to read it, including in my case a certain nephew.

       Thank you.

25855. chriskoz at 20:51 PM on 26 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 2
       

       michael sweet@5,

       Indeed, fascinating is the comparison of william's blog with Rob's science. Good that DB just crossed the link to that blog but left the link visible for the curiosity readers like me.

       Especially funny is william's argument - the main premise of his bunkum - that parrot fish poo: grains of sand somehow compacted by the action of waves and wind, provides building material for bedrock of the atoll to grow keeping apace with SLR.

       Even ignoring the absurdity of such outcome of wave and wind forces, the amount of sand (90kg per fish or 90tons per thousands of fish) is nowhere near the amount of building material required. Kiribati has total land area of 811 square kilometers. With an SLR of just 3mm/y, a kindergarten kid can calculate it means some 2.5 million cubic meters of material is needed. So not a thousand but at least 30 million fish (or over a million fish per one island) is needed to physically produce it. I don't know parrot fish population estimates but I'm sure there are not that many of htem around.

       As for william's counter of alleged 155k visits, it is likely the same bunkum as the blog text: none of the alleged visitors have left a single word of comment there. I would have left my laughing comment, but decided to keep the history of that blog intact (i.e. rightly deserved, pristine number of zero comments) and commented herein.

25856. Theo van den Berg at 20:38 PM on 26 December 2015
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Hi, I am new to this site. Originally thought it was a deniers site, but recently came across you, when searching for Milankovitch and you had a pretty possitive comprehensive description for it.

       My question is about temperature records, but first a bit about me. I live in AUS at -29.7 152.5 in my own 2 square km forest in the mountains. Not bragging here, but rather inspiring others to do the same and put their money where their mouth (blog) is, cause around here 1 square km of beautiful Aussie forest goes for about 50K USD. Between us, we could own half the Amazon and stop them from taking it down. I live in an area called Northern Rivers, cause water is scarce in AUS. Many big rivers here, some 1km wide, good for water, but they do flood. I have my own lake, so plenty of water all year round. I moved here from Melbourne after the big melt in the Arctic in 2007. Always been a GW "enthusiast" and this area would provide a better future, than living in a big City. Any GW tipping point will seriously affect big cities, causing food shortages and riots, a bit like Mad Max. Picked this area cause it is just South of the Gold Coast and the Rain Forests. With GW all that will be slowly moving South, I hope. OK, now for my query.

       When I first moved here, most days and night the sky was clear and the temperatures ranged 0-35 in winter and 15 to 45 in summer. But for the last few years, there has been much more cloud cover. I suppose if you warm water, you get more steam. Cloud cover during the day reduces the temperature and clouds at night act as a blanket. But a cloudy day, may have a few hours of clear sky, immediately increasing the temperature.

       The weather bureau in AUS (bom.gov.au) only keeps the MIN/MAX/AVR for each day recorded at 9am. Surely, that will in no way capture the changes I am seeing here. Have my own $150 weather station, but it has only been operating since 2012. Surely since COP21, the whole world agrees that the climate is warming, so why do we keep such basic sloppy temperature records. At the current level of cheap technology, the cost of one COP21 lunch would facilitate upgrading all our weather stations. Put them in parallel, so MIN/MAX matches and add a gadget to measure cloud cover (luminosity). So my query is really about the effects of cloud on our climate.

       Slightly off-topic, but with all this talk of "hiatus", are the Milankovich cycles now slowly eroding the warming, cause their effect is well overdue and if you turn down the heater, you will need more blankets.

       Thanks for listening. (moderator prune as you see fit, but with some feedback please)

25857. hank at 08:23 AM on 26 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       And today, "realclimate.org" for me instead tries to connect to 108.168.205.37, and a traceroute goes to IPs located in Stuttgart, then Hesse, then Seattle, Seattle, Dallas, Dallas, then begins reporting steps that time out.

       Curiouser and curiouser

25858. michael sweet at 22:39 PM on 25 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 2
       

       It appears that Williams link is to his denier blog post that claims atoll submergence is not so bad.  It is interesting to compare his uninformed blather to the actual facts documented in Rob Paintings references by geologists who actually visited the atolls and made scientific measurements.  At the top of his blog is a counter that claims 155,000 page views of his rant.  It is difficult to get the general public to take AGW seriously when deniers like William get so many page hits with their plausible but ignorant rants.

25859. Ger at 21:24 PM on 25 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 1
       

       Potemkin Office, a nice one. 

25860. Rob Painting at 19:09 PM on 25 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 2
       

       As Michael Sweet has pointed out, the important point to note is that the solid reef foundations which formed earlier in the Holocene due to higher relative sea level, and which underpin inhabited coral atolls, are set to be overtopped by rising sea level later this century. See this SkS rebuttal:Coral atolls grow as sea levels rise.
       
       Dickinson (2009) estimates that Kiribati will be overtopped by rising sea level at 2070 at the earliest - see table below:

       

       Not sure why William finds the scientific literature regarding coral atolls and sea level rise so difficult to accept, as you can see that he commented on the coral atoll rebuttal over 4 years ago.

25861. Gestur at 10:32 AM on 25 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 1
       

       What a lovely, appropriate holiday gift, Charles, I mean Howard. Thanks so much for this, and I look forward to Parts II and III, as a devoted, old fan of this lovely Dickens tale.

25862. michael sweet at 09:50 AM on 25 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 2
       

       William,

       While your link is interesting, a blog post by someone with a BS who is a High School Chemistry teacher (like me, except I have an MS) is not proof.  Especially since it contains no peer reviewed references.  This post at SkS by Rob Painting, which does reference the peer reviewed literature, states that there was a sea level high stand approximately 4,000 years ago that was approximately 3 meters higher than current sea level.  

       Atolls like Tarawa, capitol of the country Kiribati (which I have visited) are set on the limestone reef that was formed at the high stand, not on sand dunes as described in your link.  These reefs are about 2 meters above current sea level since coral cannot grow up to the high water mark.  Once the sea level rises over the hard rock base of the current islands they will be permanently submerged.  This will happen even if the coral grows and keeps up with the rising sea level.  There are many examples of atolls that are slowly sinking and stay just at sea level.   For example Minerva Reef, which I have also visited, has a few sand bars and the main reef that are above sea level at low tide but is conpletely submerged at high water.

       The description in your link that the locals can preserve their islands in the face of sea level rise by sufficient care is simply false.  These Islanders are at the mercy of the USA and China.  Who will take them in when their homes are destroyed by the baked in sea level rise of CO2 already in the atmosphere?

       If Rob Painting cares to comment his word is expert on this subject.

25863. dcpetterson at 06:53 AM on 25 December 2015
       Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
       

       I know it would be a massive project, but I respectfully suggest combing through these excellent "rebuttal" pages and updating them. Several were written years ago, and there is more data now.

       The arguments haven't changed, but the graphs and text could be updated to reflect newer data. For example, there have been new sea ice record lows since this article was written.

       I know deniers who will whine that things have changed since c. 2011, that trends have "reversed", that sea ice is "recovering". It would be useful, for all the rebuttal pages, to update the data to show these denialist arguments to be as senseless as they are.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Updating the rebuttal articles is a priority activity for the all-volunteer SkS author team in 2016. 

25864. howardlee at 06:39 AM on 25 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 2
       

       William - I don't claim to be an attol expert, however I was focusing specifically on the Island of Kiribati, which is based on the Scientific America article by Simon Donner in March this year (linked in the text). It's pretty clear that the island is close to being overtopped (the sea wall anecdote is real) and they also are experincing saline intrusion into their aquifers.

       The article you link to is about high sea levels in the Eeemian (last warm interglacial). The orbitally-forced pace of change going into the interglacials was relatively gentle (millenia) compared to modern times (~2 centuries). It seems likely that corals were able to keep up then, but not now. And even if they are able to keep up (ignoring Ocean Acidification for now) that's no help to human infrastructure which can't grow in the same way.

25865. william5331 at 05:41 AM on 25 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 2
       

       Coral atolls could well be destroyed by climate change but it won't be due to sea level rise.

       http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2011/09/by-by-coral-atolls.html

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Self-referentially linking to your own blog is a thinly-veiled appeal to authority that carries no weight in a venue based on the primary research like this one.  You've been warned against this practice in the past. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts...or continue to advertise their blog instead of citing the primary research. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

       Advertising snipped.

25866. MichaelJBMoreau at 02:26 AM on 25 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 1
       

       Linking environmental degradation to A Christmad Carol was done once already by Margaret Atwood in her brilliant Massey Lectures. Should be a must read for all.

       See 

       http://www.amazon.ca/Payback-Debt-Shadow-Side-Wealth/dp/0887848109

       The final lecture is the remake of Dickens.

25867. hank at 01:33 AM on 25 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       Sorry for the tangent, but in case this is useful to someone.  I agree the long time since RC updated suggests they're chasing some problem.

       Sidd, which DNS server is your computer showing you?  Have you changed to a different one?  Checked that when you see a popup?

       "Realclimate.org" was sent (during the 'hiatus') to this IP:

       208.91.197.217 (Virgin Islands)

       
       For me right now with my ISP's DNS, realclimate.org is connected to

       108.168.205.78 (Texas)
       
       

       http://www.intodns.com/realclimate.org shows some issues that may take a while to clear up.

       Is it possible your setup queries several different Domain Name Servers and one of them is compromised and hasn't been flushed out?

25868. Digby Scorgie at 19:20 PM on 24 December 2015
       The Ghosts of Climate Past, Present and Future: Part 1
       

       Ghosts of climate past, present and future, eh?  Hmm.  Any connection with the three senators: "see no climate change, hear no climate change, speak no climate change"?

25869. Riduna at 15:38 PM on 24 December 2015
       AGU 2015: Scientists offer latest update on worsening state of Arctic
       

       I find this report not only superficial but glaringly incomplete.

       It makes no mention of the effects of arctic amplification on the rate of permafrost decay and consequential carbon release.

       It makes no mention of the rate of shoreline erosion as a result of ocean warming or resulting exposure of carbon deposits, particularly in yedoma.

       It seemingly ignores the prognosis for future rate of Arctic temperature rise caused by the above, particularly as a result of methane releases to the atmosphere.

25870. Treesong2 at 12:49 PM on 24 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       I rather like 'skeppo' (cf. 'seppo') for the self-styled skeptics, though it's unlikely to find traction outside of Australia, if at all.

25871. Eclectic at 08:19 AM on 24 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       Sidd @23 : thanks for your helpful comments.

       OnePlanet @19 : I certainly agree with you, that those of us well aware of the AGW issue will (rather intuitively) be categorizing deniers into "passive/ harmful/ vitriolic/ evil/ etcetera" , on a sort of spectrum.

       Nevertheless, that "thought concept" does need expression in words/labels.   Such word labels need to be short and to the point ~ and that point includes easy communication with those many people who are only slightly engaged with the Global Warming issue.  They need useful and easy-fit labels to describe the various different groups.  ( In the same way: short labels e.g. club names, are needed to define the various different Football Clubs. )

       The labels are best if they are descriptive rather than just an abstract name.

       Denier or denialist is a very well-fitting descriptive name.  Accurate and memorable.

25872. PhilippeChantreau at 08:11 AM on 24 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       OK Tom, we certainly can refine things. But I have no doubt that we are way past the point where it became evident that long term, sustainable, well being of civilization requires a drastic reduction of CO2 emissions.

25873. sidd at 07:45 AM on 24 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       I apologize for continuing an offtopic thread and this will be my last post on the subject. The adware I refer to on realclimate is not due to malware on the visiting browser. I have tried this on known clean installs of linux and BSD with various browsers. The (intermittent) redirects to adware sites seem internal to realclimate site, do not occur every time. I do not have the time or inclination for fuller testing, especially without permission from realclimate, so I will leave it there for now.
25874. Tom Curtis at 05:02 AM on 24 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       PhillippeChantreau @21:

       "With climate science, we are way past the point where we had to develop the very means of investigation needed to explore the theory."

       Not quite.  For climate investigations, long term observations that encompass a full hemisphere of the Earth would be invaluable.  That has recently been obtained for the  sunlit side with very much delayed, but recently launched, 'goresat'.  The satellite should be paired with an equivalent satellite at the L2 point.

25875. hank at 03:29 AM on 24 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       dang. It's too smart for me. Just break that mess before each "https" and you'll have three separate links.
25876. hank at 03:29 AM on 24 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       rats, the blog software lost the line breaks. Again:

       https://www.virustotal.com/

       https://www.metascan-online.com/

       https://www.phishtank.com/

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Separated links.

25877. PhilippeChantreau at 03:28 AM on 24 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       It is true that plate tectonics actually did take little time to become the dominant paradigm. However, we should consider that this happened at a time when the means of investigation and the sheer amount of work going into the research made it possible for knowledge to progress that fast.

       It took a lot longer for Arthur Holmes to get the geological community on board with the evidence for the true age of the Earth, but partially because he had to wait for the development of the dating methods that could erase all doubt (he also contributed to these developments).

       With climate science, we are way past the point where we had to develop the very means of investigation needed to explore the theory. We have everything we need, and more, and there are literally thousands of researchers using the most advanced methods, publishing paper after paper, the immense majority of them pointing in one direction. There is no significant disagreement in the scientific community about the main theory of Earth climate.

25878. hank at 03:27 AM on 24 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       P.S., if you're still seeing popup ads, after carefully following the steps linked above to rid your own computer of the problems (and after you have installed and are running Malwarebytes and an antivirus program) (and know the difference, you need both) Then: start checking the websites you go to with one of the online scanning tools. Examples are: https://www.virustotal.com/https://www.metascan-online.com/https://www.phishtank.com/
25879. One Planet Only Forever at 01:04 AM on 24 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       When it comes to terms of reference for people regarding issues like climate science and the required changes its developing better understanding point to, I prefer 'helpful', 'blindly harmful', and 'deliberately harmful' but it is essential to understand the context for those terms.

       I start with the understanding that advancement of humanity only occurs through the development of ways of living (attitudes and actions) that can be continued indefinitely without fighting on this amazing planet. Any other type of development is a waste of time and effort in spite of temporary regional popularity and profitibaility. And it is essential to understand that popular and profitable activities can even be very damaging in spite of perceptions of prosperity created in the minds of those who benefit most from the damaging unsustainable developments.

       The objective is all of humanity actually sustainably living a decent basic life and participating in and contributing to that sustainable diversity of humanity. And it is important to understand that 'everyone having a chance to be one of the few in the long line of humanity who live a decent life' is not meeting the objective, and can actually be the furthest possible thing from that objective.

       Therefore, for humanity to advance, humans need to develop more understanding of what is going on and apply that understanding to the development of ways of living that all of humanity can benefit from essentially perpetually (our amazing plant, and many others, can be perpetual motion machines for humanity to thrive on - perpetually, not for a moment). That requires the constant development of new activities that allow a robust diversity of humanity to live as a sustainable part of a robust diverstity of life on this or any other amazing planet. It also requires the termination of developed ways of living that are learned to be damaging or are simply not sustainable. The burning up of non-renewable resources is a clear example of an unacceptable development that needs to be terminated, the sooner the better for the future of humanity (contrary to the interests and desires of some humans in this moment in human history).

       In that context as modifiers of 'contributions' to the advancement of humanity toward a lasting better future for all life on this or any other amazing planet, I prefer the terms 'helpful', 'blindly harmful', and 'deliberately harmful - harmful with awareness - criminal'.

       The blindly harmful need to be helped to better understand what their life really needs to focus on and contribute to. Some of the blindly harmful will choose to become helpful and some will become deliberately harmful.

       And the deliberately harmful will need to be kept from being free to do as they please until they prove they have understood the need to change their minds. Many of them will resist 'reason' when reasoning would lead to the understanding that their 'personal desires in their lifetime' must be given up because of 'what is needed to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all'. They will 'need the most help'.

25880. Don9000 at 23:15 PM on 23 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       Thank you scaddenp. In other words, plate tectonics theory fit the evidence and in about a decade the scientists of the day adjusted their understandings and moved on from there, much as the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and now 195 nations have accepted the reality of climate change induced by human activities.

       
       One modest proposal: Wegener's theory was not 'plain wrong': it was incomplete, sure; imperfect, absolutely; flawed, of course; but clearly not 'plain wrong'. The Wikipedia entry on Wegener links to a 1981 paper by Wolfgang Jacoby with this abstract:

       "In his first publication on continental drift, Alfred Wegener anticipated sea-floor spreading, the functional relationship between bathymetry and age or temperature below the sea floor, perhaps mantle convection, and some aspects of plate tectonics. Some of these insights, such as sea-floor spreading and bathymetry with age, did not appear in his later work; others, such as convection and plate tectonics, were taken up when new evidence became available. His intuition led him to these insights, and he had a very clear perception of the distinction between facts and speculation."

25881. mancan18 at 23:10 PM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       Eclectic @17

       I agree, the terms I suggested do not easily convert into some snappy public relations acronym or simple term. I am not convinced that agprop or CCprop would work for AGW/CC propagandist. Unfortunately, the terms denier, contrarian or sceptic do not adequately describe all the possible nuances.

       Also, several other terms might also be needed.

       There are scientists in the field who do their scientific research honestly with good intentions but are not completely convinced by or neccessarily agree with all prevailing AGW/CC propositions. Some of these scientists do good science and contribute to the growing body of scientific knowledge by highlighting problems, inconsistencies and anomilies with some of the research. By doing so they cause other scientists to look into these inconsistencies. This ends up in making the theory more robust and ultimately increases understanding. Then there are other "scientists" who are often in the pay of interests seeking a predetermined outcome for their own advantage. These scientists add very little to the body of scientific knowledge because they are merely adding distractions and moving the deck chairs of known knowledge. Perhaps there needs to be separate terms for those who contribute to the body of AGW/CC knowledge and are recognised by their scientific peers, and for those who merely detract from or contribute nothing to the body of AGW/CC knowledge and have no recognised standing in the field. Perhaps terms equivalent to AGW/CC contributor and AGW/CC detractor might suit. Sadly, again, these don't bring any useful acronyms or simple terms to mind. I guess climate scientist and not a climate scientist might be all that is needed but again these terms do not cover all the nuances.

25882. John Mason at 21:51 PM on 23 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       #12 - Interesting - thanks for pointing that out. I'll have a look at the work.

25883. Eclectic at 21:50 PM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       @mancan18 (post #16) : possibly there should be some handful of labels for science-deniers . . . since deniers seem to come in a spectrum of hues ~ ranging from the ill-informed [rather passive, Fox-News-swallowing couch-potato]; through to the deranged Conspiracy Theorist; and further through to the rabid, devil-take-the-hindmost sort of libertarian ["I had to destroy the world to save it" type!]; and yet further through to the "knows-he's-in-the-wrong" but chooses to propagandize against any correcting of the AGW problem.    Of course it's not as simple as that ~ the denier groups overlap to some extent (as shown by multi-hued individuals).

       Lengthy labels such as "antiAGW/CC propagandist" cannot hope to survive our natural abbreviating tendency . . . plus they fail to address the moral dimension in all this.   There is a moral dimension, in that (a) the deniers are collectively [by lies and procrastinations] harming the human race and the biosphere, and (b) deniers individually attack scientists (see Kevin C's note in post #3 ) in a way we can fairly describe as evil [ as well as deranged! ].

       Denier or denialist is a term that includes a touch of the "Godwin-esque" , and so is a term difficult to improve on.  As well as being very accurate.   But if an improvement can be thought of, then we should certainly consider it.   Open to suggestions!

25884. MarkFisher at 19:58 PM on 23 December 2015
       December 2015 Floods: a floating postcard from the UK
       

       I’m not sure from where this “restoration was successfully tried on the River Liza in Ennerdale” comes from, although it’s been parroted many times recently, including by Monbiot in an article in the Guardian. Monbiot references the work of one of our MSc students, but what it actually says is this:
       “Within the present analysis it is impossible to determine whether there has been any change in the River Liza as a result of the Wild Ennerdale project initiation in 2003, although considering the small changes in land-use and the fact that the valley has only been subject to low-intensity land-use since the Bronze Age (National Trust, 2003) means significant changes are not anticipated”

25885. mancan18 at 18:53 PM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       Eclectic @14

       I am not happy with the term denier or contrarian to describe those who promote the idea that AGW/CC will be all OK and there is nothing to worry about. The word skeptic also doesn't seem appropriate considering the sceptical nature of science in general. Perhaps, anti-AGW/CC propagandist might be more appropriate for those with hidden agendas who don't actually discuss the science but only use political rhetoric to obscure the scientific arguments. With regard to those who don't seem to understand the scientific basis and the ramifications of AGW and CC, then perhaps being AGW/CC challenged might be more appropriate.

25886. Paul D at 18:46 PM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       ryland "as ye sow so shall ye reap" @ 5

       
       As in:
       "as ye sow Carbon Dioxide so shall ye reap Climate Change."

25887. scaddenp at 14:02 PM on 23 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       1965-68 saw the landmark papers for plate tectonics. By 1976, it was the ruling paradigm. If there was resistance, it was short. Wegner's theory was plain wrong. Yes, the continents did once join together, but they did not travel over the oceanic crust. Plate tectonics was accepted while there was a lot of debate of drivers and mechanism.

25888. Eclectic at 11:41 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       @ Nick Palmer [#12] writing: "I have been getting much less kickback by using the term 'delusionist' " .   Nick, an interesting observation there!  Personally, I would feel more insulted by the term "delusionist" . . . but perhaps that's just me.  Plus, delusionist is a rarely encountered word : sounding a bit like a (toothless) neologism, and almost to be confused with illusionist (which is a clever stage-performer, sort of ~ and not at all unflattering).

       Why would a science-denier be rather unconcerned by the label "delusionist"?   Perhaps because it's a vaguer and more general term, and maybe implying hyperbole too.  And because [denier-me] rarely experiences being called that . . . and because [denier-me] am obviously quite sane [my sanity also being attested to by my friends] . . . and well, it clearly adds up to the guy being wrong in calling [me] a delusion-holder. QED

       Perhaps there's a further explanation of the teflon-coated unconcerned rejection of "delusionist".   Just as the schizophrenic, experiencing the delusions of (untreated) schizophrenia, has no actual appreciation/ insight/ understanding of "delusion" . . . so too the deluded Conspiracy Theorist can have little understanding of the nature and severity of his own delusions.

        

       Still: the term denier/denialist has a certain bite to it ~ in part, because the denier knows (deep inside) that he is in denial of a (distasteful) reality; and he resents such public exposure. 

       Despite all that resentment, the deniers themselves have yet to discover a neutral/flattering term for themselves that isn't ridiculously inappropriate.   "Skeptics" is simply ridiculous, because they are nowhere near being real skeptics (and indeed are the opposite).   "Contrarians" is also quite inappropriate, because it implies that they hold logical [though minority] views which are in touch with reality.  ( Also which they have completely failed to demonstrate! )

25889. Don9000 at 08:01 AM on 23 December 2015
       Why climate contrarians are wrong
       

       Was plate tectonics theory really resisted by the scientific community? I know Wegener's early 20th century theory of "continental drift" was resisted, but the obvious reason for that resistance was that an explanatory mechanism hadn't been proposed.

25890. chriskoz at 07:29 AM on 23 December 2015
       AGU 2015: Scientists offer latest update on worsening state of Arctic
       

       James Overland is the first person (of course excluding AGW deniers and bunkum nonsense repeaters) I've heard saying that arctic sea ice will actually recover later this century if people take action to stabilise climate.

       Remarkable piece of optimism, James! Especially among many reports saying that ice free arctic is inevitable within our lifetimes and beyond that... nothing. Eventually: water has lower albedo, more warming, more gloom and doom.

25891. hank at 04:58 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       > realclimate ? Adware abounds.

       
       Here's what you need to fix — it's in your computer, not at RC's link (now).  You could have gotten it from that site during the registration problem, or from many other sources.

       https://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-go-goadvs-com/

       From this and a couple of mentions at RC, I think people who were not running adware/virus protection back during the brief, er, hiatus in registration picked up a malware/virus load.

       At that time, when registration was screwed up, I noticed redirection attempts and reported that to RC.  But I run Malwarebytes and a couple of other antivirus tools and haven't picked up the malware myself.

       
       You have — probably it has modified the hosts file record for RC (and eventually other sites you use also).  It's an intermittent offender which means you need to follow all three steps at the malwarebytes help page, to root the damned thing out.

       
       These things are lurking all over the Internet.

25892. Richard Lawson at 02:22 AM on 23 December 2015
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       

       MA, Tom and Rob, Many thanks for your helpful responses, particularly for the beautiful dance of CO2 levels in Rob's link.

25893. Nick Palmer at 01:42 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       Eclectic@4 wrote "Deniers or denialists . . . it's all the same. And what better term could be used? "
       
       A lot of then get very sweaty about being called those terms, in particular those who describe themelves as sceptics, who usually turn out to be some version of a "lukewarmer".
       Recently, I have been getting much less kickback by using the term "delusionists" which I find ironic because, to me, being accused of being delusional would be much worse than being called "denier".

25894. Tom Curtis at 01:37 AM on 23 December 2015
       How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
       

       matt sykes @66 refers to Fig 2 of the OP for the slope relationship.  However, he is confused.  First, a globally averaged forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 at the skin layer of the atmosphere results in a 5.4 W/m^2 increase in net downward longwave radiation at the surface.  Ergo he has underestimated the forcing change at the surface.  Second, that figure is for the forcing only.  It does not include feedbacks which further increase the OLR.

       Finally, the figure shown is for data collected over less than a month.  It follows that, due to the large thermal inertia, the surface does not reach equilibrium in that data.  Therefore the slope is not a slope of the equilibrium responce, or even the Transient Climate Response to the change in forcing.

25895. One Planet Only Forever at 01:34 AM on 23 December 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #51
       

       Kiwiiano,

       The most despicable people are the ones that actually better understand something but hope to get away with deliberately abusing the point you refer to. The popularity of such people can easily intimidate thoughtful and considerate people who would want to point out the unacceptability of what they are trying to get away with.

       When those despicable people get control of governments or corporations or organizations it can be very difficult to limt the damage they do.

       Despicable people have gotten away with inflicting all kinds of unjustified punitive actions on thoughtful considerate people. Popular support for those who fight as dirty as they can get away with to prolong or expand their success in their understood to be unacceptable pursuits is a clear sign that current socioeconomic systems are a failed experiment that is getting dangerously out of control, like a nuclear reactor with a cooling system failure, or attempts to geoengineer a 'correction' of the damage being done by humans benefiting from burning fossil fuels.

25896. Johnb at 01:33 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       I suspect side-tracking is on display. It's not obligatory to fall for it.

25897. Tom Curtis at 01:24 AM on 23 December 2015
       It's the sun
       

       matt sykes @1160, the actual quote from the advanced version of the OP is:

       "Unfortunately observational low-level cloud cover data is somewhat lacking and even yields contradictory results. Norris et al. (2007) found

       "Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record."

       So the jury is still out regarding whether or not there's a long-term trend in low-level cloud cover."

       (My emphasis)

       Your version is a rather blatant misrepresentation of the text.

       Despite that, I will bite.  Dana elsewhere says:

       "In reality, the CERN experiment only tests the bolded step in this list of requirements for cosmic rays to be causing global warming:
       

       1) Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger
       2) The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping
       3) Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires:
       

       1. Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation
       2. These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)
       3. The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation

       4) Cloud cover on Earth must be declining"

       (My emphasis)

       The alternative to their growing "...sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)" is that they simply evaporate away to quickly due to their small volume and large surface area.  So, here is a cloud chamber in action:

        So, do the rapidly forming tracks then gradual dissipation indicate that the liquid droplets are growing through condensation, or just fading away?  How does just seeing this clould chamber in action make it obvious that they are growing through condensation rather than dissipating?

       And that, of course, is in a supersaturated solution - not normal atmospheric conditions.  So, yes, I think the jury is still out on whether or not cosmic rays can lead to the formation of clouds - and looking at cloud chambers does not resolve the issue.  Certainly, at least, if you actually look rather than bringing your prejudice to the table.

25898. Tom Curtis at 01:02 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       ryland @8, given that you reject the IPCC position on attribution, and ask PeterH about why he accepts it, it is only fair that you are forthcoming on the attribution level you accept (with uncertainties) and why.  Certainly PeterH should feel no compulsion to  respond to your questions while you continue to conceal your actual opinions.

25899. KR at 00:44 AM on 23 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       ryland - I suggest you look at both the Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming post and the huge amount of work summarized in IPCC AR5 Ch. 10, Detection and Attribution of Climate Change. Multiple approaches, including examining all known forcings (natural forcings alone would have induced a slight cooling over the last century, but note we are seeing warming), statistical correlation of forcings with changes over time (from the last 40-120 years, such as Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Lean and Rind 2008), and, yes, model comparisions with natural and natural plus anthropogenic factors, which show the same results. And including all estimates of uncertainty on those factors, the possibility of natural causes adding up to 50% of recent warming is less than 5%. The best estimate is indeed a human attribution of 110% - that without human influences we would have seen a temperature drop over the last century.

       Your comment is a combination of decrying and attempting to dismiss large chunks of the evidence, dismissal of well known and quite solid early work (Arrhenius), implying the attribution comes from a single researcher (Serengheti strategy, a claim not even remotely true), and in essence multiple arguments from incredulity - logical fallacies.

       I await a reference or two to actual attribution studies that support your incredulous claims - but I'm not going to hold my breath. 

25900. ryland at 23:57 PM on 22 December 2015
       The best of climate science and humanity come together at AGU
       

       PeterH Can you advise how the 100% of global warming is attributable to humans has been arrived at?  Are you saying that computer programs devised by humans, who not only freely admit to not knowing the precise details of how the various factors  affecting the climate interact but also that there are almost certainly unknown contributing factors, are reliable prognosticators of global warming?  And please don't bring Arrhenius 1896 into your argument a syou are dealing with a scientist with a lot of experience in vetting all sorts of claims.  And just to finish I do know climate change is occurring and that humans are responsible at least in part  but I don't accept Gavin Schmidt's 110%.  Also  I accept that a 2C increase means the end of the world as we know it for as Roy Spencer has recently pointed out we are already at 1.5C increase

Prev  510  511  512  513  514  515  516  517  518  519  520  521  522  523  524  525  Next