Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 Next
Comments 32651 to 32700:
-
dvaytw at 02:25 AM on 2 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Yes it occurred to me that you might think that, and given my experience with such people, I totally understand why you would! And thanks again to the responders above... man did I just make one very smug fellow look bad!
-
Tom Dayton at 02:07 AM on 2 December 2014It's too hard
New estimate of electricity generated if every roof and parking lot were covered with solar panels: 100 times consumption in the U.S.
-
dvaytw at 00:59 AM on 2 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Dear JH. Please accept my apologies. I waste a lot of my time trying to slap down denier arguments in various forums and comments sections under articles. In this case everything that came up in Google was mirrored from a denier blog, and noting pertinent was found in your search engine . Usually I can get an answer here in lightning fast time (as with this case). Honestly, if I don't do that, I'll probably just have to concede some points because it certainly isn't worth spending a whole heap of time looking such things up.
If such lazy inquiries aren't welcome here, can anyone recommend another place where they can be made effectively?
Finally, I fully understand if you want to delete my inquiries in this thread, and will try to refrain in the future. Also, point taken about quoting and linking to the article.Moderator Response:[JH] I purposely prodded you to make sure that you were not engaging in an elaborate ruse in order to spread denier poppycock on this site. I am now staisfied that you are not doing so. Please do continue to seek expert advice on this website. However, please do not apologize every time you do so.
-
Lomax at 00:57 AM on 2 December 20142nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@CBDunkerson: Great, many thanks for clarifying; I guess that summary was just poorly written - as was my post, on second read-through :) I'm relieved to hear that my understanding of thermal equilibrium was basically correct and that the greenhouse effect works the way I thought (though I'm not sure relieved is the correct word here). Indeed it does sound worrying that the feedback from reduced albedo and increased water vapour levels might be greater than previously thought - let's hope they are proven wrong!
-
CBDunkerson at 00:51 AM on 2 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #48
wili, wow. That's a great graphic. If you search on 'Omega block' you should find a few stories from a couple weeks ago about the phenomenon responsible. Example.
-
wili at 00:40 AM on 2 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #48
It looks like the polar vortex has basically split in two. I believe that is rather...uncommon. Are there any news stories about it?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-15.56,74.65,282
-
CBDunkerson at 00:35 AM on 2 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
dvaytw. as Tom has pointed out, the entire 'Tim Ball victory' story was a bizarre bit of fiction. I can't believe deniers are still managing to live in that alternate reality months after the fact.
Information about the data for the 'hockey stick' can be found here;
Of course, the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and numerous individuals (including 'sceptics' like McIntyre) have reviewed this data makes the continued claims that it isn't available right up there with Tim Ball's amazing non-existent court victory in the category of 'evidence that these people are mentally ill'.
Moderator Response:[RH] Sorry, your link was breaking the page format by just a smidgen.
-
dvaytw at 00:33 AM on 2 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Tom, as nutty as a lot of denialist blogs are, I'm finding this hard to believe. You mean that website is totally fabricating the claim that Mann's lawsuit has been dismissed?!? (or Ball is, and they are parroting his claim)
That is nuts. Everyone and anyone will be able to check and refute this. Does anyone know more about this? I haven't been able to find a single reputable news source saying anything about it - but of course lots of denialist blogs posted it.
Moderator Response:[JH] "Reliable news sources" do not typically pay attention to what is being posted on the websites of known crackpots.
-
CBDunkerson at 00:06 AM on 2 December 20142nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Lomax, when the first quotation says, "...within about a decade the effect of adding the thicker blanket has been cancelled by the warmer body emitting more energy", the 'effect' in question is the amount of outgoing long wave radiation. The planet (i.e. "the warmer body") is still hotter... it is just that the increased heat eventually leads to the radiation flows in and out equalizing. The planet isn't going to "return to its earlier temperature" as you say... just to it's earlier OLR rate, which is happening precisely because the temperature has increased.
"This just doesn't make any sense to me; if CO2 is able to "trap" long-wave radiation, surely if you keep increasing the CO2 level, the "trapping" ability will also continue to increase?"
Yes, but as you 'trap' more long wave radiation within the climate system that causes/is heat buildup... which causes/is even more long wave radiation emission, until eventually the extra amount being emitted equals the extra amount being trapped and the total output returns to its original level.
Think of it as a lake with one stream flowing in and three streams flowing out. If you block off one of the outflow streams (i.e. add CO2 to reduce OLR) then the amount coming in from the inflow stream (i.e. radiation from the Sun) now exceeds the amount going out and the water level rises (i.e. the Earth gets hotter). However, as the water level rises that causes it to flow out the two remaining outflow streams faster (i.e. the amount of longwave radiation increases) and eventually the lake water level stops rising when the inflow and outflow rates are again in balance (i.e. the temperature stops increasing when incoming and outgoing radiation again match).
For the record, none of that is actually the 'result' found by this study... that's all basic global warming. What this study is arguing that is 'new' is that the warming effect of increasing CO2 will very quickly be overwhelmed by the feedback warming effect of a darkening planetary surface (e.g. from melting snow and ice). I'm not sure I buy that, for one thing it's a model result which doesn't seem to jibe with paleoclimate studies, but if anything it actually suggests that warming will be much greater than expected.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:55 PM on 1 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
dvaytw @42, those allegations were made on Feb 21 of this year. On Feb 22, Michael Mann responded by posting a letter from his lawyer on face book:
"Response from my lawyer in response to latest claims by #TimBall (more info on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball) & #JohnOSullivan (more inf on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-sui… ):
The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief.
Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true.
Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process.
February 22, 2014
Roger D. McConchie
Barrister and Solicitor
Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann" -
Paul W at 20:15 PM on 1 December 2014Our short film on the One-Two Punch of Climate Change
I was up at Heron Island earlier this year diving but was not able to see the experiments. The results so far I did get to here about were very clear from the tour I went on of the experimental station.
It's a very good to see the video with so much in so little time. Well done! The pictures tell the story. BAU holds no good news for the GBR.
With the Keeling Curve showing an accelleration of CO2 emissions and the portion of CO2 staying in the air staying about constant, ocean acidification is a fact of simple physical chemistry. To see what that does to the reef is clear enough.
The need to change course now with all the resources we can muster and to say so in three minutes is impressive.
-
dvaytw at 18:49 PM on 1 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
PS The reason my question is relevant to this thread is that deniers are using the recent win of Tim Ball against Mann in Canadian court as evidence that he won't provide his data:
The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State." In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.
MICHAEL MANN FACES BANKRUPTCY AS HIS COURTROOM CLIMATE CAPERS COLLAPSE
Moderator Response:[JH] Please refrain from posting quotes from climate denier websites — especially statements that are patently false.
-
chriskoz at 18:32 PM on 1 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #48
jimlj@1,
I've read a bit about Flat Earth Society and their arguments supporting "the alternative thinking" in hope of finding some novel idea they could be proud of. Sadly I found nothing but logical mistakes and non-sequitur reasoning in general.
So I disagree, the comparison of climarte science deniers logic to FES logic is quite accurate with respect of number and gravity of their logical falacies.
But interestingly, many climate science models are well compatible with FES model. The layered 1D greenhouse gas absorption model is a chief example. Even the most orthodox flat earther can easily accept it while we know that many climate ecience deniers reject it. In fact, given the precision of input data (e.g. the volume of glacial melt), we simply calcutate the SLR by dividing said volume by the area of the oceans, just like flat earthers. Because the sperical shape of the Earth (or even the water spilling into some low lying parts of continents) does not matter for the resulting numbers.
So for the practical purposes we can say, that climate deniers are even bigger science deniers than flat earthers.
-
dvaytw at 18:25 PM on 1 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
I'm sorry to be lazy again, but I'm looking for the quickest possible response to the denier claim that Michael Mann "has refused consistently and insistently to supply the basic data used behind these constructions".
I tried phrasing my querry various ways in the search engine, but didn't come up with anything useful.
Moderator Response:[JH] Perhaps you need to devote more time to doing your own research. Your stream of apologies for being lazy is beginning to wear thin.
-
wili at 14:13 PM on 1 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #48
RealClimate is covering a recent article on El Nino:
-
td3 at 13:38 PM on 1 December 2014The latest global warming bill and the Republican conundrum
I would not say this bill qualifies under the definition of revenue neutral. It would be hard enough to get a bill passed that just says: "All revenue shall be paid out in reduced earned income and Soc. Security tax." Instead this bill has all sorts of other provisions: Page 24 of the pdf at http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/download/?id=5a0a5234-a651-4e50-a4b5-2b15a7e57d3a&download=1 says the funds can be paid out in various ways. Only (b) and (i) are clearly revenue neutral. (a), (d), (e), (g), and (h) are clearly payouts to special interests and are by definition not revenue neutral.
‘‘(A) Providing economic assistance to low income households or households in regions 5 with disproportionately high energy costs.
‘‘(B) Transfers to the general fund of the Treasury to offset tax cuts.
‘‘(C) Transfers to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the Social Security Act to provide supplemental funding for increases in Social Security benefits.
‘‘(D) Providing tuition assistance for higher education or alleviating federal student loan debt.
‘‘(E) Investing in improvements to the infrastructure of the United States.
‘‘(F) Providing dividends directly to individuals and families.
‘‘(G) Providing transition assistance to workers and businesses in energy intensive and fossil fuel industries.
‘‘(H) Investing in mitigation and adaptation measures that promote national security, protect public health, conserve natural resources, or fulfill international climate commitments made by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
‘‘(I) Reducing the debt of the United States.
-
Zeboo at 10:44 AM on 1 December 2014It's the sun
Zhao and Feng have now published their paper in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics: Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years
Would be great to get som updated comments since this is making the denier blog round
-
jimlj at 10:37 AM on 1 December 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #48
The cartoon is actually an insult to the flat earth society, which does accept AGW. flat earth society accepts global warming
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:42 AM on 1 December 2014Animals and plants can adapt
tkman0
The latest IPCC report has this graph about species movement rates vs warming rates
-
tkman0 at 05:18 AM on 1 December 2014Animals and plants can adapt
Thanks for the replies everyone, also just wanted to point out that some of the links on here dont link to articles, but insteasd link simply to a general climate change page at the univeristy of texas.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:37 AM on 1 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
Yvan Dutil,
The SkS Temperature Trend Calculator page does not have the 2014 data being added monthly. The Calculator was created in 2012 and has the 2013 data in it, so it appears that it is planned to be updated after the full 2014 sets of data are available.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:35 AM on 1 December 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Kevin C,
Is there any way to change the scale values on the x-axis to be more representative of the 12 months of data points in a year, like 13.25, 13.50, 13.75?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:33 AM on 1 December 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Kevin C,
Perhaps a note could be added up front mentioning when the Calculator data will be updated. It appear that the plan is to update the Calculator when the full sets of data are available for a calendar year. A question was recently asked on the "Mercury Rising:2014 ..." OP.
-
Yvan Dutil at 03:07 AM on 1 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
Speaking of temperature. Is the SS trend applet has been updated recentely?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:48 AM on 1 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
A related point is the extent of Arctic and Anatarctic sea ice.
The NSIDC sea ice extent tracking here shows that, although the Antarctic maximum sea ice in 2014 was a record level of extent significantly larger than any previous year on September 22, it dropped rapidly. By early October the 2014 Antarctic extents had dropped to match the 2013 extents after being 0.5 million square km larger than the previous recoird year 2013. And since the end of October the 2014 extents have been consistently lower than 2013, into the range of standard deviation for Antarctic sea ice extent.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:36 AM on 1 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
MA Rodger,
Thank you. I was aware of the way to see the full listing of the monthly anomalies on the NOAA site, however, what Jose_X and I were trying to show was the value of the average of 12-months ending on each month.
The NOAA site allows the average of a wide variety of time periods, from the standard 1-month up to 60-months, to be obtained for any chosen end-month for the set of chosen years, but only for the same end-month in each year.
The NOAA site appears to be set up to allow quick comparisons of a 'calendar month' to the same month in previous years. That quickly allows the evaluation and reporting of how warm a month is compared to the same month in previous years. That is probably more accurate than just comparing all of the months since each month of the calendar year may have a different normal global average value. However, the average of any multiple of 12-months makes the uniqueness of a month no longer relevant since each average contains all months and the same number of each month.
The NOAA site is not set up to quickly evaluate the averages of multiples of 12-months. You have to review the results for each of the 12 month choices. My earlier point was about the lack of need to discuss how warm a 'year is so far'. A more relevant evaluation is 'how warm the past 12-month period has been, which is still a year, just not the more recognized calendar year'.
A similar approach would apply to 'decade averages'. A new decade average can be created from each new month added to the data set. There is no need to wait for the end of a decade to evaluate how decade averages are changing.
Of course, with the rather random significant variations about the norm that occur in the global average surface temperature the better average to track to minimized the aberrant fluctuations would be 30-years or longer.
The NOAA monthly anomalies can be copied to a spreadsheet to evaluate these longer averages. However, it would be helpful if the NOAA site was set up to allow these types of evaluations to be presented.
-
MA Rodger at 20:19 PM on 30 November 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
One Planet Only Forever @10.
The NOAA temperature Time Series page you discuss is a bit odd in not provide the obvious option of graphing the full set of monthly anomalies. However, the data displayed below the graph with the option "Previous 12 Months" are the monthly anomalies for the full record.
-
wili at 19:19 PM on 30 November 2014Skeptics were kept out of the IPCC?
You don't have a question mark on the question (first title, at the very top of the page), and you do put one on the statement (second title, in the pink box).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:16 AM on 30 November 2014The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change
@6... Cantonese is "gonjeng mui." :-)
-
factotum at 04:04 AM on 30 November 2014The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change
Good thing that we are no longer part of England. Though it would have been nice if someone had identified the the author as English and not american.
After doctors, the rest of the top ten occupations seen as prestigious include military officers (78%), firefighters (76%), scientists (76%), nurses (70%), engineers (69%), police officers (66%), priests/ministers/clergy (62%), architects (62%), and athletes (60%). LINK
As to the wonderfulness of china. It is the most poluted country on the planet.
http://fortune.com/2014/06/05/china-rich-immigration/
There is a reason that those who can are leaving and taking their money with them to the tune of about a biillion dollars every three years. http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/25/news/economy/china-us-immigrant-visa/
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link. Please use the link tool on the second tab of the comments box to shorten excessively long url's.
-
r.pauli at 03:04 AM on 30 November 2014The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change
Oh Goody! How does one say "Clean Coal" in Chinese?
-
From Peru at 02:09 AM on 30 November 2014The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change
Maybe China official commitments of a peak in coal in 2020 are a bit too conservative (from Reneweconomy.au)
-
From Peru at 02:04 AM on 30 November 2014The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change
Wili, maybe after suffocating in the worst pollution clouds seen in the world, having to cure millions of people with respiratory illnesses and facing possible civil uprisings against pollution they are finally realizing that burning coal is a race to disaster.
-
wili at 00:43 AM on 30 November 2014The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change
"That country has a forward looking view of the future. Not only in clean energy and climate..."
I'm not exactly sure how you can say that about a country that burns about half of all coal burned in the world.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:38 PM on 29 November 2014The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change
I hope the current support of basic science continues in China. However, the power of pursuers of profit and the temporary popularity for unsustainable harmful action they can create could easily overcome the apparent support for basic scieence in China. Hopefully, the powerful people infuencing China are becoming genuinely interested in the development of a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet. Hopefully, they will resist the temptation to return to pursuing a better present for themselves any way they can get away with.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:27 PM on 29 November 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
Jose_X,
Unfortunately the NOAA site presents data for the same month each year.What you see with the timescale at '12-month' and the month as 'October' is the average of 12 months ending in October for each year. There is no option that shows the month-by-month values of the time series. You have to review the data for each month to find out what all of the 12-month averages were.
Here are the month-ends with 12-Month values that are closer to the 12-month ending in October 2014 value of 0.68 C:
- 0.66 C - Jul 1998, Sep 1998, Apr 2007, May 2007, May 2010, Jun 2010, Nov 2010, Jul 2014
- 0.67 C - Aug 1998, Jul 2010, Aug 2010, Aug 2014, Sep 2014
Note that the 12-months ending in October 2014 is still the warmest so far in the NOAA data set, and that August and September 2014 are 40% of the small group of 12-month periods that are just 0.01 degree cooler.
Also note that in the NOAA data set no year before the 1997/98 ENSO El Nino event had a 12-month average in the 0.66 C and above range. In fact the warmest 12-month periods before 1997 were 0.45 C for the 12-months ending in August, September, October, November and December 1995. And 1995 was another weak ENSO event like 2010, yet its temperatures were warmer than the stronger ENSO events before it.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:49 AM on 29 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Ashton @67:
With regard to sample size, first it is apparent that you are not aware of the standard practise in social sciences in which small sample sizes are the norm. They are the norm because, given a fair sample, that is all that is needed to give determinative results. checkmarket.com discusses the issue, and displays the following table:
Using their calculator, we can see that with a population of 300 million, the required sample size for a 5% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval rises from the 384 required for a population of one million, to 385. Alternatively, using the second section of the same calculator we can determine that for a population of 300 million, with a sample size of 200, you have a 6.93% margin of error for a 95% confidence interval and a 9.11% margin of error for a 99% confidence interval. (Note: That means that 95% of repeat surveys with the same sample size would fall within 6.93% of the values given in the survey conducted, assuming representative samples.)
These are approximate values. The formulas for more exact values can be found here.
Applied to the graph above, the error margin on the margin in the y-axis between any two values is 9.8%, less than a third of the difference between those most strongly supporting and those most antipathetic towards free market ideologies. Therefore, even with so small a sample size, the results hold. It is unclear, due to the small sample size, whether or not the "cultural bias" is closer to 28 or 48%, though it is most likely near to 38%.
I have not commented on this before because I have a passing familiarity with sociological research and am aware of the small sample sizes typically used. Frankly, in sociology (and social psychology) a greater concern is the frequent use of university students to form the sample, a group that cannot be considered representative on a number of criteria. John Cook to his credit paid for a professional survey of a representative population, with the result that his sample size was limited by budget, but his results were more reliable than if he had taken the cheap option of surveying 500 university students.
I am also aware that the graph is supposed to be indicative rather than definitive.
So, let's chalk this up as an example where your criticism introduced discussion of a significant point in the OP. Your discussion, however, merely waved a flag with not attempt to actually determine the significance of the point you were raising. Further, with more knowledge your flag is seen to not raise a significant point. These features are typical, in my experience, of the best offerings of scientific pseudo-skeptics such as yourself. At their worst, they are simply wrong, self contradictory and (in many cases) dishonest.
In contrast to the pseudo-skeptics, regular commentors here have a history of raising genuine issues. Not that we always pick them up, but when they are brought to our attention by questions or comments, we have an even better record of supporting the valid points.
-
michael sweet at 11:07 AM on 29 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Ashton,
Your claim that only when you comment are topics closely examined is false. This post attracted a lot of attention because it was poorly supported. The general comments were that it could not be supported and the references were not properly peer reviewed. Renewable energy and nuclear also get a lot of discussion.
Perhaps you should consider if your comments are contributing to more general understanding or just the noise. You have attracted a lot of attention from the moderators, which generally indicates more noise. Reviewing your posts on this thread I see a lot of political commentary, mostly disparaging those you disagree with, and little science. Perhaps if you starting emphasizing science content you would have less trouble with the mods.
There used to be a lot of skeptical posters who supported their posts with data and they were well received. Now there is little to support the skeptical argument so skeptics leave when their arguments are shown to be unsupported.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:48 AM on 29 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Ashton... Your comment @67 is just silly. What attracts commenters is when people, such as yourself, post comments that contradict the large body of research on climate issues. This is what SkS is all about. We communicate what the research says.
The sample size related to John's graph above is really not that critical an issue (as far as I can see). There is nothing being claimed that rises to the level suggesting the data may be in error. It clearly is a small sample, but if you think it's an interesting element of the research that might be wrong, by all means, we would all be interested to see a larger sampling that showed something different.
I think people here don't question the number much simply because it seems to reflect our general experiece dealing with various people who reject or accept AGW. The precision of the data likely wouldn't change overall perception of the data.
But again, if you think for some reason the small sample size is introducing misleading conclusions, then please, do more research! There's a good paper to be written if you come up with a different conclusion, and it's one that would be of keen interest to everyone at SkS and John Cook as well, I'm sure.
That's how science works. You don't like the methods or results. Do your own research and see what you come up with.
-
Jose_X at 05:42 AM on 29 November 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
Adding further to #8:
NOAA allows you to see the 12 month average anomalies through any month easily at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global . Just change the "Timescale" at the top to "12-month" and it shows we are currently (October) at the highest 12 month ave with +.68 (vs .65 for 1998 and 2010).
And changing "Timescale" to "Previous 12 months" shows that, despite only covering through Oct, we have had .70+ seven times in 2014! In no other year has the .70 mark been reached more than four times.
-
Ashton at 05:03 AM on 29 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
John Hartz As these posts will be read only by you, if in fact they are not deleted instantly without being read here's a couple of thoughts. However much you may not believe or even like it, I do have a PhD (from UWA) based on laboratory experimentation using biochemical, immunological and molecular biology techniques, have published in my field and was a academic for over 30 years, reaching professorial status. Have you noticed that when topics attract posters such as myself, the comments section is often much enlarged? This seems to be as comments that disturb the equanimity of the usual posters causes them to jump to the defence of their beliefs. Let's look at Mr Cook's graph of the political persuasions of 200 US citizens. Not one comment that 200 is a very small sample size or that as error bars weren't included so the statistical validity of the conclusions is not assessable. Just a small point that no doubt contravenes some aspect of comments policy, but your usual cohort of commenters don't critically assess the topics but just say' "Well done, that clarifies that" or "This should crush sceptical opinions" with no attempt to critically appraise the results. When commenters such as I comment then the paper is often discussed in detail as your usual commenters are shaken out of their lethargic acquiescence to show this impudent intruder that their science is impeccable. I do hope you don't exclude those who are less convinced, at the moment, that the current climate change is due solely to human influence as the resulting discussions sharpen the wits of all concerned and lead to a much more forensic analysis of the topic in question than otherwise would be the case.
Moderator Response:[JH] The antagonistic and condescending tone of your comments is a major reason why they are being scrutinized closely by moderators. Posting comments on this website is a privilege, not a right. If you cannot engage in civil discourse and abide by the SkS Comments Policy, you will forfeit this privilege.The choice is yours to make.
-
Ashton at 04:23 AM on 29 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Thank you for your reply. I note you state "The deletion of moderation complaints has been a long-standing practice of SkS Moderators. I presume because such complaints are considered to be "off-topic."
So even if something is not stated in the comments policy as being grounds for deletion, your presumption that it is off topic is sufficient for deletion. I also presume this post will be deleted but deletion based upon personal interpretation by moderators does add a further layer of complexity to the wording of comments. Whatever, thanks for the apology and your for admission that moderation complaints are not explicitly merntioned in the comments policy
Moderator Response:[JH] All decisions made by humans are subjective to some degree or another.
Typically, we employ a three-tiered moderation process. What follows is the standard text of Warning #2. You have been served so to speak.
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. 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.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:14 AM on 29 November 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
There is no need to 'wait two more months'. Any 12 month period is a 'year'.
In the NASA GISTemp data set here the average of the 12 months ending in November is 0.05 C warmer than the warmest set of 12 months that occured during the very strong 1997/98 El Nino event, the 12 months ending in Aug and Sept of 1998.
And reviewing the NOAA ONI data set here those peak 12 month average temperatures in 1998 occured 5 months after the ONI had dropped below El Nino levels. Also, the monthly average in the GISTemp data increases dramatically in Sep 1997 even though the ONI is clearly El Nino by April-May-June 1997.
Reviewing the Government of Australia SOI data here those peak 12 month average temperatures in 1998 occured 4 months after the SOI had rise above El Nino supporting levels of -8.0. Also, the monthly average in the GISTemp data increases dramatically in Sep 1997 even though the SOI is clearly El Nino supporting (below -8.0), by March 1997.
It is also easy to see that the 2010 global average temperatures were bumped by an ENSO event (combination of SOI and ONI) that was quite weak compared to the 1997/98 event but still produced global averages higher than the 1997/98 event. And the 12 months ending in October 2014 are only 0.02 below the highest 12 month average in 2010.
This has been presented in many ways by many people. Nothing needs to be 'waited for' to 'show people who are genuinely interested in better understanding waht is going on' that global average temperatures continue to rise with the most prevelant cause being the added atmospheric CO2 from human actvity, with the most significant contribution being from the burning of buried non-renewable hydrocarbons.
The real challenge is figuring out how to get leaders to choose to act responsibly and considerately rather than hoping to promote popularity for inconsiderate irresponsible profitable and pleasurable activity.
-
gws at 04:00 AM on 29 November 2014The Chinese scientific revolution aims to tackle climate change
Excellent article John. I would add that, while budgets may not be increasing in Europe either, scientists there do still receive a lot of respect and attention, and science and scientists are regularly in the news. In addition, I do not think that the situation you describe for scientists working on topics that are "anathema" to many people is transferable to the sciences in general.
However, we could use some more solidarity in the sense that physical scientists ought to be supportive of other sciences they may consider less rigorous, such as biology. And vice versa: more scientists from all fields ought to support their colleagues in climate and evolution sciences, who regularly get attacked, because silence only reinforces the notion that you described as "Understanding basic science is a threat to many people in my country" in the general population.
-
Ashton at 03:20 AM on 29 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Thanks John Hart and Michael Sweet your efforts are much appreciated. John Hartz, thank you for your apology. As the reason for deleting my post at 61 was incorrrect, will that post now be moved from the deleted comments section and reposted?
Moderator Response:[JH] No, I will not repost your comment because it constituted a moderation complaint and hence was off-topic.
-
Andy Skuce at 02:01 AM on 29 November 2014The latest global warming bill and the Republican conundrum
British Columbia's experience with a revenue-neutral carbon tax is that the extra administration costs are very small. Most fuels are already measured and taxed at the point of sale and the rebates and dividends can be paid through the existing income tax administration.
One important feature of a carbon tax that is defined in its legislation as revenue-neutral is that repealing it will cause an income and corporate tax increase. This dis-incentivizes conservatives from scrapping it. Maybe Tony Abbott would have thought twice about getting rid of Australia's carbon tax, if that had triggered an immediate income tax increase.
-
michael sweet at 01:07 AM on 29 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
Here is Ashton's original post, accidently deleted:
"John Hartz I checked the comments policy but couldn't find anything that made mention of a Moderation Complaint. Would you mind posting that item from the comments policy? It would be much appreciated. My apologies for this request if the item is in fact quite obvious."
I copied it from the deleted comments screen. also po also
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you.
I would also point out that Michael Sweet has access to the delected comments section because he is a member of the all-volunteer SkS authors team.
-
shoyemore at 00:20 AM on 29 November 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
Make a note to update the "Escalator" graph as soon as you can in 2015.
-
Rob Painting at 17:27 PM on 28 November 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
Chriskoz, as Reason 4 has correctly surmised, it generally boils down to whether the record occurs in the 1st calender year of an El Nino event or the 2nd. Although El Nino hasn't yet formed, this year has been close to the threshold for a while.
As for the polar vortex/jetstream, that's an area of still fierce scientific debate. That the jetsream has undergone a long-term strengthening, and climate models simulate this under greenhouse gas-driven warming, puts the issue into perspective - a discussion for another day unless you want to find an appropriate thread to continue this.
-
Ashton at 16:25 PM on 28 November 2014Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change
John Hartz
Thank you for your courtesy.
Sorry but I didn't keep a copy but in essence said I couldn't find in Comments Policy any reference to the Moderation Complaint you referred to in post #61, asked if you would advise what the policy said and apologised if I should have been able to find it.
Moderator Response:[JH] Much to my chagrin, you are correct. The Comments Policy does not explicitly prohibit the posting of moderation complaints. I therefore apologize for incorrectly stating that it did so.
The deletion of moderation complaints has been a long-standing practice of SkS Moderators. I presume because such complaints are considered to be "off-topic."
Our exchange has triggered an internal review of this ball-of-wax by the members of the all-volunteer SkS author team.
Prev 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 Next
