Recent Comments

Prev  704  705  706  707  708  709  710  711  712  713  714  715  716  717  718  719  Next

Comments 35551 to 35600:

35551. chriskoz at 15:12 PM on 19 June 2014
       Ice picks: Five pieces of ice news revealing earth’s ice cover is in serious decline
       

       jetfuel@14,

       You begin by analysing the Greenland icesheet melt numbers in your first paragraph.

       Then you try to attribute the percentage of GIS melt to US CO2 emissions in second paragraph.

       Finally, you conclude:

       I begin thinking 'news' of a great Greenland meltdown at a recently doubling rate is intended for low information people.

       How does such conclusion follow from your post? IMO, your conclusion is irrelevant to the preceding arguments, i.e. it is illogical hand waving/trolling.

       Firstly, while considering melting of GIS, you should consider total climate forcings, not just forcings from US CO2 emissons.

       Secondly, while considering the melt rate variability (apparent doubling in X years), you should concentrate on just that. Your assertion that an annual melt takes "only 0.103 of one of the 1470 squares" is irrelevant ands patologically illogical. We know that it will take many centuries at the current rate to melt the entire GIS.

       If considering the "doubling of melt rate" you should lokk e.g. at this picture:

       

       and figure out how the slope of the green line changes. We can clearly see that it accelerated lately.

35552. KR at 13:34 PM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       likeithot - Your most recent reply contains several logical fallacies, namely Argument from Authority (while Lindzen is a climate scientist, he is in a distinct and tiny minority on his views, with multiple papers debunked), Red Herrings (eugenics), the Argument from Uncertainty regarding the maturity of the field. You also have Gish Galloped false claims about extreme weather, sea level rise rates,  and the temperature record. 

       From your posts it appears you, in fact, are the person who has been spending too much time in the echo chamber - deep in denial myths. 

       At this point it's clear to me that you are simply trolling, and are not interested in a rational discussion of the data and science. I would suggest that the correct response is DNFTT (Do Not Feed The Troll). 

35553. jetfuel at 11:40 AM on 19 June 2014
       Ice picks: Five pieces of ice news revealing earth’s ice cover is in serious decline
       

       If Greenland is topographically like a bowl, wouldn't flow from melt beneath the ice actually send water inland and then in December-Febuary it would all solidify. Seems to work against it all getting into the sea. Any slipping would get welded in place. Only the outer fringes would not fall under this characterization.

       I read the comments about the 200 GT of annual melt from Greenland (10 km3 just one piece at Twaites), when 2012 is compared to 2011. When I searched for the 2013 net melt over 2012, I found clues that there was no net melt. It seems that typically there isn't any significant net loss per year with the one exception of 2012. More research from decades ago revealed that 125 cubic miles calves from Greenland annually, which equals the replensih rate from snow, which falls every month there. 10,000 to 15,000 calves of ice break off the coastal glaciers of Greenland annually. The alarm of one being (10 GT) 1.9% of the 125 cubic miles of annual flow seems pretty minor. Greenland, An area from Denver to NYC that reaches 750 miles in width and for which the normal ice pack temp hits 10 F in July as an annual max would get plenty of snow and upon which any soot would be soon covered in snow.

       To find some perspective on the great ice loss of 2012, I took a piece of graph paper that was a grid of 35 by 42 squares representing the 2,850,000 km3 of ice on Greenland, the 47 cubic mile loss of 2012 was only 0.103 of one of the 1470 squares of the page. Then, If I were to attribute that loss to too much CO2, and then consider that the US is responsible for 14.14% of Global human produced CO2, then the US could possibly be responsible for (.103) *(.1414)=.0145 of a square on the page (the melt). And if we could grow our US population by 4% over the next year and still cut CO2 creation by 10%

        

       then we could shrink our contribution to that loss of ice by (.0936)*(.0145)=.00136 of one square the next time it might happen. That's where I begin thinking 'news' of a great Greenland meltdown at a recently doubling rate is intended for low information people.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Please cite your sources - especially for no net melt or I'll delete for sloganeering. You do realise that the published losses come from mass measurement (GRACE) or altimetry change not fiddling with graph paper? You might get better insight to greenland topography and its implications if you read the Morhighem paper cited in the article.

       You might also want to look at Co2 limits will harm the economy

35554. Rob Honeycutt at 10:27 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       likeithot said... "...Lindzen is a highly recognized scientist with a lot more published science than all of those who work on this site combined."

       So, let me get this straight. One scientist presents a position you like, so that trumps 97 other equally qualified scientists who disagree with him?

       Look, no one says that the 97% are absolutely right and the 3% are absolutely wrong. That's not how science works either. But, when it comes to making critical policy decisions you have to have a reference for how to make those decisions. What are the chances the 3% are right and the 97% are wrong? 

       I would suggest that, even if the figures were 50/50, that would be more than enough reason to take aggressive action on climate change. 

       If there were a 50/50 chance my house was going to burn down if I didn't get the wiring replaced, you'd be darned sure I'd be making that investment asap.

35555. Mal Adapted at 09:38 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       Scaddenp,

       There are some soi-disant skeptics who don't respect the IPCC but do respect the US National Academy of Sciences.  Those people might learn something from the 36-page booklet Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, jointly published by the NAS and the Royal Society of the UK.  It should be considered to represent, for what it covers, the scientific consensus on AGW.

35556. Andy Skuce at 09:31 AM on 19 June 2014
       In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
       

       Terranova@31

       The BC carbon tax is applied to any combustion of coal within the province, but not to any coal mined in the province (or the US) that passes through the ports. Similarly, any oil or gas that is exported from BC is not taxed. 

       A significant exception to the taxing of fossil-fuel combustion is that on any flights from BC to outside the province, the jetfuel is not subject to the carbon tax. On flights within BC, the aviation fuel is subject to the tax.

       I'm far from an expert on the direct health risks of fossil fuels, but I believe there is increasing evidence that particulates pose a bigger health risk than people used to think. WHO reports that there are about 3.3 million deaths per year from indoor air pollution (partly biofuels) and 2.6 million deaths estimated from outdoor air pollution (mostly fossil fuels) in SE Asia and the Western Pacific region (includes China).

       But pollution deaths are not confined to developing countries. According to the OECD there are 40,000 deaths per year in France from vehicle diesel emissions alone. That's about ten times the number of deaths there from road accidents and the equivalent of the 9/11 deathtoll every month.

35557. scaddenp at 09:29 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       As a post-script, I have a pretty clear of set of criteria for data that would falsify climate theory based on what climate theory actually predicts.

       eg.

       - OHC flat or declining while known net forcing same or increasing.

       - 30 year surface temperature trends flat or declining

       - Ratio of insurance costs for weather events/geophysical events on a 10 year average flat or declining

       - sealevel rise declining over a 10 year interval.

       Do have a set of criteria for changing your mind?

35558. scaddenp at 09:21 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       What Lindzen publishes in journals gets noted. What Lindzen presents to the naive is rather different and depressing.

       Eugenics was not the scientific consensus opinion by a very large margin. Democracy would work okay if the population was actually accurately informed but as you are aptly demonstrating, people prefer to get their "information" from sources which confirm preconceived beliefs.

       Spare us the strawman arguements please. You obviously read a pack of pseudoskeptic sites, why not read what the science is actually saying and predicting instead of the nonsense that would appear to fit your prejudices? Have you ever look at the IPCC WG1 report? It would appear not from those statements.

35559. scaddenp at 08:27 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       How do you think policy should be guided? Personally I think that in highly technical areas, policy should be guided by the consensus of experts. It might be wrong, but that is still the best way for policy makers to proceed.

       Of course you need to know what the consensus is and interestingly, several ways of examining this have arrived at the same conclusion. If you dont think that this is the consensus opinion, then where is your evidence to the contrary?

       I think the idea of group-think in science is total joke. "Science is a contact sport" is more realistic - and utter applies to Lindzen's example which was clearly not group-think. Actually it is example of politically-motivated abuse of science much like the anti-AGW stance which is rather ironic.

       Otherwise, the piece consists of misinformation that Lindzen would certainly not say to his peers and the usual political argumentation method of selective historical presentation to support an argument. How about showing a little skepticism for this sort of stuff and checking it against the actual science yourself?

35560. KR at 08:26 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       likeithot - If you are in agreement with Lindzen, are you arguing that the consensus is unimportant, that attribution is impossible, or that scientists are wholly motivated by money and status rather than facts? Because all of those contentions are quite false. [And as a side note, the comparisons to eugenics, Nazis and Lysenko in Lindzens article indicate to me that he isn't resenting a fact-based argument, rather just rhetoric...]

       In the interests of remaining on topic, I'll just note (as many others have) that public policy decisions are driven by the information available, that on complex subjects we depend upon expert opinion, and that due to some rather serious efforts by 'skeptics' there is a gap between the expert opinion and the public perception of the same. Consensus is very important in informing policy. 

       I will also note that your "look, squirrel" changes of subject mean that you have not supported any of your claims against Cook et al's methods or results. 

35561. Synapsid at 08:26 AM on 19 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       

       composer99,

        

       You are saying that derp's taking a dim view of Skeptical Science sharing editorial cartoons is a usual thing with him.  Is that your intention?

35562. likeithot at 08:06 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       R. Honeyutt:

       
       Lindzen’s JP&S article "Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents" sums up pretty well the problem with group think, “look how many people are on our side” type arguments:
       http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

35563. DSL at 01:51 AM on 19 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       

       GISTemp L-OTI for May is out: 0.76C — the warmest May on record.  If the rest of 2014 averages what the first five months averaged, 2014 will be the warmest year on record.  Of course, with a moderate El Nino forming, the chances of maintaining that average are fairly small.

35564. Rob Honeycutt at 01:00 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       likeithot...  Every single paper or piece of research ever done, and every one that ever will be done, can be done better. That's just a fact of life. 

       I will take from your combativeness and unwillingness to test the results of Cook13 as an admission that the results are likely to be correct.

35565. KR at 00:41 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       A clarification on my previous comment:

       For those unhappy with Cook et al., there are some issues that need to be addressed. 

       • If you agree with the overall level of consensus, you cannot claim the Cook et al. raters were biased. 
       • If you feel the raters were biased while ignoring independent results, the Cook et al. data (the abstracts) are publicly available - do the work and support your claim, or drop it as opinion and not fact. 
       • If you disagree with the overall level of consensus, provide some evidence. Or again, hand-waving opinion unsupported by facts. 

       And if you are arguing that expert consensus is unimportant, why is consensus one of the most frequent primary 'skeptic' claims presented to argue against policy changes? Perhaps, just perhaps, because expert consensus is actually critical to policy decisions...

       Again I (IMO) view arguments against the consensus, made without evidence, to just be efforts to influence public policy - trying to persuade the public to ignore evidence, to ignore reality. 

35566. KR at 00:29 AM on 19 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       likeithot - While the paper could have been more explicit with each individual endorsement level description (at the risk of some repetition), reading the set of exclusive choices as a whole and the guidelines used for evaluations clarifies that endorsement levels of 1-3 are for a majority anthropogenic influence, while endorsement levels 4-7 are for minority or negligible anthropogenic influence. The levels are in fact quite clear on that. 

       You can only claim a lack of attribution levels in the Cook et al paper by ignoring the context of the multiple exclusive choices presented - in essence by taking things out of context. That's an error on your part, and on the part of many who have criticized the paper. 

       As to trying some ratings yourself, that's a suggestion made because you (and any critic) have some options available regarding this paper and the consensus.

       1. If you think the Cook et al raters were biased in their work, do some ratings yourself - a few hundred from the evaluation set should be managable in a weekend day, enough to see if the 97% estimate is supported by the abstracts evaluated. Otherwise you're criticizing w/o evidence, hand-waving. That's one of Tols errors. 
       2. If you agree with the general consensus level, but are just criticizing the methods used in Cook et al, then you are by your very agreement with results not able to argue rating bias. This is another core error in Tols comment.
       3. If you disagree with the level of consensus entirely, with Doran, Anderegg, Oreskes, and Cook et al, you need to provide some independent evidence, i.e. do the work. Or you're again engaging in unsupported hand-waving.

       There really aren't any other choices wrt this paper. 

       In regards to consensus vs. science - the consensus is not the science, but rather is driven by the science, by the available evidence and data. As in any public policy issue, no one person is expert on everything (although some people act like they are, oddly enough) and we therefore rely on expert opinions. And as noted in the Cook et al paper, the gap between the existing scientific consensus and the public view of that consensus (due in large part to signficant ongoing efforts at obfuscation and misinformation) means that our public policies will be misinformed as well - unless and until that misperception is corrected. 

       Claims that a scientific consensus on climate doesn't exist despite multiple studies or even cursory looks at the literature, or that expert opinions are meaningless, are really just efforts in denial, and attempts to halt reality-driven public policies. I consider such claims to be wholly ideological rather than evidential. And (IMO, mind you) I regard your claims in this thread in like manner. 

       If you wish to argue public policy, great, do so, although I suspect SkS is perhaps the wrong place for purely political discussions. But policy discussions need to be based on accurate information, including the reality that the vast majority of people studying climate agree on the basics of AGW. 

35567. Jim Hunt at 22:29 PM on 18 June 2014
       Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
       

       @All - By all means discuss such matters here, but it seems appropriate to point out that this discussion is currently ongoing over on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum:

       "Climate Change Perceptions and Communications"

35568. Terranova at 22:14 PM on 18 June 2014
       In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
       

       Thanks, Andy. I want to do some more research on the premature death subject.

       Also, is the BC coal mining industry taxed? Apparently, it is a multi-billion dollar industry. Details can be found here.

35569. Jim Hunt at 22:13 PM on 18 June 2014
       Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
       

       I really should add the following clarification from Professor Catherine Mitchell, to clear up any possible confusion. Regarding UK low carbon energy generation she points out that:

       Since 1990 we have added 3-4% – i.e. we were at 8% largely nuclear and hydro and now we are at about 12% which is nuclear, hydro, new renewables and interconnectors. But the main point that we are still well behind what we need is right, although if we had loads of energy efficiency we would need to have less supply.

35570. MA Rodger at 21:35 PM on 18 June 2014
       Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
       

       likeithot @23.

       Do you not feel that the OISM Petition Project has "a clearly pre-meditaded (+unscientific) political adgenda"?

       I note elsewhere on this website you protest that your questioning went unanswered. With that sensitivity in mind, I would answer your question @21 by pointing out that the "someone" is surely the GWPF who certainly require a reality check. To publish that propagandist and scurrilous nonsense from Andrew Montford is, for an organisation registered as a UK educational charity, bringing the UK Charity Commission and the numerous legitimate charities it supports into disrepute.

35571. foolonthehill at 19:31 PM on 18 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24B
       

       Derp - I think you are missing something here. It seems to me that the article does indeed suggest that there is a net increase in temperature due to air conditioner use. 

       It mentions the location as being Phoenix, Arizona - a desert environment. I would imagine that the air conditioners will be working 24/7 in such conditions. The article says that the heat extracted from the house doesn't make a noticeable difference to the external daytime temperatures ('cos its already scorching hot). When the sun falls and the external temperature drops, the air con is still pumping heat out of the building and increasing the external temperature. That is where the 1C comes in - night time use.

       Air conditioners run from an electrical supply - this is adding more 'heat' to the existing desert fire. 

       Perhaps the building construction methods need updating? (backdating? - adobe has advantages...)

35572. derp at 18:23 PM on 18 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24B
       

       So we are all in agreeance that there is no net increase in temperature being caused by air conditioning.  It's just that the heat is being released all at once during the night instead of gradually throughout the whole nightly and early morning period.

       For a minute there I was thinking that the mod mistakenly thought that air cons were increasing net temperature.

35573. Dikran Marsupial at 17:08 PM on 18 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       likeithot if you want a different question answered, then perform a survey of your own.  However, if you want to ask how much of the warming we have witnessed is because of human activity, then you are basically only looking at papers that specifically address the question of attribution.  Fortunately, there is a report that already summarises th litterature on this topic (chapter 10 looks like a good place to start).

       "As to your suggestion that I re-do the "study", I find the whole point of the study to be political in nature, trying to prove a scientific point by some kind of opinion poll"

       
       nobody is claiming that the existence of a consensus on a scientific question is in any way proof that the mainstream position is correct, that is a straw man.  The point is to provide evidence of what the mainstream position on the science actually is.  Why is this point worth addressing?  Because there is a gap in the public perception of the mainstream position and the reality.  This is explicitly mentioned in the article, so it is hard to understand how you have misunderstood the purpose of the study.

       If you want evidence that the science is right, the IPCC AR5 WG1 report is a good place to start.

35574. likeithot at 16:29 PM on 18 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       You didn't respond to any of the points I made regarding how the study should have been done.   In short, it is poorly done because it avoids the critical question of the whole debate:  HOW MUCH of the warming that we have witnessed is becasue of human activity.  Almost no one argues that humans have had no impact, so disproving that is just knocking down a straw man.

       As to your suggestion that I re-do the "study", I find the whole point of the study to be political in nature, trying to prove a scientific point by some kind of opinion poll and then bragging all over the press that your opinions are right because you claim to have lots & lots of people on your side.  I have no interest in popularity contests.   It is a sign that your arguments are weak, and a distraction from the fact that most models are very inaccurate and didn't predict the pause in warming of the past 17 years.

       Moderator Response:

       (Rob P) - Readers will note that the strike-through text relates to other climate myths dealt with here (Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming) & here (Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues), for instance.

35575. Rob Honeycutt at 15:15 PM on 18 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       likeithot said... "He actually gives several examples of how the 'study' could have been done."

       How about we change the scare quotes to "...how the study 'could' have been done."

       To my point once again, if Hulme has ideas on how the study could be done better, then by all means, let him do what scientists actually do in these situations where they disagree. Replicate the study. If it can be done better, then do it better! 

       I would suggest that the vast majority of those critiquing Cook13 don't want to replicate because they know they're going to come up with the same result. 

       In fact, you too can replicate the study, likeithot. Right here on this website. We've created a tab at the top where you can rate abstracts yourself. So, spend a few hours doing it. Maybe you'll come up with different results. If so, you can let us all know.

       Anything short of that is, as they say, just belly-aching.

35576. Paul C at 14:00 PM on 18 June 2014
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       "Arguments to the contrary are superficial"

       The actual temperature record shown in the HadCRU4 measurements for the last ten years are not an argument.  They are actuals.  The end of the series in 2013-2014 is turning down.  Global Warming from ANY cause is not happening.  The next two years and beyond will show that arguments are not necessary.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] You are continuing to spam threads. Any more will be deleted. You also clearly havent actually read the article or you would realize that you are making a superficial argument. Please take some time to understand the science (we provide the resource here) if you want to have a constructive discussion. If your intent is to bomb threads with uninformed comment and not engage with discussion, then you will be banned.

35577. chriskoz at 13:45 PM on 18 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       

       Bill McKibben's piece in smh: Tony Abbott's climate change policy makes me cringe, tells us that AUS & CA appear to be the only nations singled out as the nations whose leaders are denying the climate change. Especially Bill's conclusion:

       Eventually [...] voters in these countries will realise they’re being driven off a cliff. In the meantime, perhaps they might want to pretend they’re Americans when traveling abroad.

35578. Magma at 13:40 PM on 18 June 2014
       Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
       

       @ chriskoz, a very likely source is a comment under a September 21, 2010 post by Joe Romm, where he discusses the term "global climatic disruption" used in a June 1997 statement letter signed by John Holdren and 2414 other scientists.

       5.  Doug Bostrom says:
       September 21, 2010 at 7:28 pm

       “Climate disruption” is very apt, more descriptive than “climate change.” Perhaps “anthropogenic climate disruption” would seal the deal.

       http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/21/206755/climate-disruption-caused-by-global-warming-driven-by-human-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases/

35579. Composer99 at 13:29 PM on 18 June 2014
       First Look at HadCRUT4
       

       Paul C:

       Why would we deal with a time period that is:

       (a) meaningless, from the perspective of analyzing the behaviour of the climate (there's a reason climatology usually operates on 30+ years)

       (b) cherry-picked (doubtless because in HadCRUT 4 it gives a negative, but neither statistically significant nor (see below) physically significant, trend)

       (c) unrepresentative of the behaviour of the climate in response to the global change in radiative forcing caused by greenhouse gases (since surface temperature represents approximately 2-3% of the Earth climate heat storage)

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] And perhaps look at the "Escalator" graph on this left.

35580. chriskoz at 13:24 PM on 18 June 2014
       Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
       

       AuntSally,

       ACD is an interesting and sound term. I wonder who and when invented it. Using google, I was able to trace it to no earlier than Dahr Jamail in Truthout in  April 2014, so very recent. Anyone can find earlier origin?

35581. Paul C at 13:23 PM on 18 June 2014
       Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
       

       Stopping the series at the year 2000 does not tell us what is happening now.  Look at the authoritative Hadley-Crutchfield Temperature graphs themselves.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] So which figure stops at year 2000? Please avoid cryptic comments. If you have an argument to make, then make it in a clear fashion, and dont spam lots of threads.

35582. Paul C at 13:21 PM on 18 June 2014
       Record growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2013
       

       Lets lay the CO2 increase data set for 2003-2014 up against the Global Temperature Record for 2003-2014.

35583. Paul C at 13:17 PM on 18 June 2014
       First Look at HadCRUT4
       

       Lets look at the period from 2003 to 2014 and put a trend line in over the last ten years.

35584. Ben Rose at 11:47 AM on 18 June 2014
       In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
       

       For a long time I have thought that a revenue neutral carbon tax is the way to go. It could be sold as "The tax that is not a tax - you get it all back'.

       We had a similar thing in Australia but they had no clue how to sell it and the Opposition (now in Government) intend to repeal it, having convinced the gullible in the electorate that any carbon price (including carbon cap and trade is  a 'great big tax on everything'.

       With a completely revenue neutral tax the accusations of 'picking winner to receive grant / loans' are neutralized (excuse the pun).

       The modelling also shows a logical result of such a tax - people get cash in their pockets to spend, but they can reduce their emissions (energy consumption), saving money and are therefore better off.

       At the same time there is stimulus to build new renewable generation, which is jobs intensive and reduces the balance of trade deficit because less fuel is imported.  Wind and solar are already as cheap or cheaper than new coal or gas so don't need feed in tarriffs or RECs. But they catn compete with old coal / gas plants that were paid off years ago. So all that is needed is the C price so that old coal plants are not kept running but are closed sooner.

       Simple really.

35585. MThompson at 09:54 AM on 18 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
       

       I found Mr Hartz’s comment 14 to be in jest, so I take him at his word that he had no “snarky” intent in his statement. I also unabashedly admit that his response to my comment numbered 10 irritated me to the point I willfully engaged in "snark." This entire debacle could have been avoided had I submitted a comprehensible comment.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Thank you. Please continue.

35586. likeithot at 09:25 AM on 18 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       He actually gives several examples of how the "study" could have been done. 

       1.For starters, hire some independent people to actually review the abstracts.

       2. create a definition of AGW that is actally meaningful, like for a paper to count as supporting AGW it would need to actually state that, and state the degree to which they think humans are responsible, more than 50%, or less, for example.  This is obviously crucial, as most scientists don't deny warming or that CO2 has some effect.  The debate is about how much of an effect, as they undoubtedly knew and avoided in order to be able to forward their political adgenda.

       Incidentally, where else in science is a number like 97% so religiously adhered to/miraculously arrived at in "independent" studies?  <Snip>

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Read the comments policy. Compliance is not optional. Future violations are likely to result in the comment deleted rather than snipped.

35587. likeithot at 09:15 AM on 18 June 2014
       Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
       

       The article I cited explains clearly how the standars were "refined" with a clearly pre-meditaded (+unscientific) political adgenda.

35588. Rob Honeycutt at 08:50 AM on 18 June 2014
       97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
       

       likeithot...  Then Mike Hulme is welcome to replicate the research and show everyone how he believes it should be done. As it is, Cook13 confirms all the previous research on this topic, including Oreskes04, Doran/Zimmerman09 and Anderegg11.

35589. Rob Honeycutt at 08:46 AM on 18 June 2014
       Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
       

       likeithot...  No one writes off the opinions of 30,000 people. It just happens to be an extremely low figure once you put it into context.

       The 30k figure is a subset of some 30 million people who fit the definition of the petition. Once you add the denominator you find that 30k is a very tiny number.

       Once you refine the standards and focus on actual expertise in the subjest of climate change, then you find that 97% agree that humans are changing the climate primarilty through the emissions of CO2.

35590. likeithot at 08:29 AM on 18 June 2014
       Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
       

       Gee, I never knew it was so easy to write off 30,000 people's opinions as being meaningless.   You'd think it would at least cool the sanctimonious rhetoric about 97%.

       Maybe someone needs a reality check?:

       http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf

35591. scaddenp at 08:02 AM on 18 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24B
       

       Terranova - Putting "urban heat air conditioning" into google scholar would suggest that research has been going into this years (at least 1988).

35592. scaddenp at 06:53 AM on 18 June 2014
       In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
       

       dhugalf - I would agree that this is not enough access to alternative energy. To change this you have to create the conditions that will result in investment in alternative energy. You dont need crowdfunding etc. You just the need the appropriate market conditions to guarantee ROI.

35593. AuntSally at 05:43 AM on 18 June 2014
       Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
       

       Thanks for the links.  One point:  I'm now using the term Anthropogenic Climate Disruption... or simply Climate Disruption... rather than climate change.  It makes the human element explicit in the terminology...

35594. Andy Skuce at 04:23 AM on 18 June 2014
       In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
       

       Terranova, answering your first two questions:

       1) I have addressed the issue of cross-border shopping for gas in some detail on my own website. It is a factor in under-reporting fuel consumption in BC, but a small one. Furthermore, the carbon tax is just one reason why gasoline is more expensive and gasoline is just one reason why Canadians go shopping in the USA. See also this article by Yoram Bauman.

       2) There are details about how the carbon tax is administered on the BC Government website. They say:

       The carbon tax applies to the purchase or use of fuels within the province. The amount of GHGs emitted when a unit of fuel is burned depends fundamentally on the chemical make-up of the fuel, particularly on the amount of carbon in the fuel. That fact allows for a relatively simple administrative process for applying the carbon tax.

       Administratively, the carbon tax is applied and collected in essentially the same way that motor fuel taxes are currently applied and collected, except natural gas which is collected at the retail level. This minimizes the cost of administration to government and the compliance cost to those collecting the tax on government’s behalf.

       So, the incremental administration costs are small, because fuels were already taxed. Also, monitoring GHGs was already done at a national and provincial level because this is mandated by the UNFCCC rules that Canada has signed onto. Therefore, the carbon tax added no significant additional administrative burden there, either.

       As for your last point, the health risks from fossil fuels, particularly respiratory problems resulting from coal are well known (for example) and, in any case, the 13,000 deaths per year number was in the Executive Summary of the report that Dana linked to.

35595. adrian smits at 03:31 AM on 18 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24B
       

       So it would seem the general increase in weaith in our modern society is contributing more and more to the UHI effect!

35596. Tom Curtis at 23:04 PM on 17 June 2014
       In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
       

       dhugalf @24, CBDunkerson was not the only person to respond to you, and the responses by other people (including by me @11, with a follow on @ 16) clearly show why your response to CBDunkerson is ill informed.  We can change our emissions be means other than just changing our electricity supplier.  Further, electricity suppliers are in competition with each other and will gain in that competition by reducing their emissions in producing electricity.  Your response merely shows the limit of your imagination in reducing your own emissions, and your inability to understand how pricing mechanisms work.  Nothing more.

35597. Tom Curtis at 22:55 PM on 17 June 2014
       In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
       

       DAK4Blizzard @23, it turns out there are a number of conventional divisions of the US that could have been used.  Arbuably that used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis would be most suitable, but it turns out in their actual analyses the Bureau uses different divisions that do not correspond to state boundaries.  Therefore their divisions are not particularly convenient, nor necessarilly appropriate.

35598. Tom Curtis at 22:46 PM on 17 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24B
       

       Terranova @4 - And the effect of those airconditioners on temperature records have been compensated by carefull adjustments based on close study of UHI effects over that time.  You've been very carefull not to say that for years as well, but it remains true none-the-less.

       Caerbannog showed comprehensively the entirely unskeptical nature of concerns about the UHI two years ago when he made an index of global temperatures from 50 long term rural records:

       

       His work just follows a very large number of scientific studies designed to detect the UHI effect, and compensate for it, but shows very simply that the compensation has been effective.

35599. Terranova at 22:41 PM on 17 June 2014
       In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
       

       Dana1981,

       Three points for which I would like to see some clarification.

       1. There is evidence that BC residents are crossing the border to the US to buy cheaper gas.  From the Statistics Canada website found  here, the numbers can be run and clearly show a huge increase in "one-day return trips to the US from British Columbia, by automobile".  This does not appear to be factored in your calculations.
       2. How is the program administered? There have to administrators, supervisors, beancounters, etc... to manage the input and output of tax money.  These people have to paid.  Can you explain the percentage of the taxes that must be siphoned off to pay this people?
       3. Where is the data to back up the following claim of yours? "In a key side-benefit, because other air pollutant emissions are reduced as fossil fuels are phased out, the report projects that 13,000 premature deaths would be prevented annually after 10 years, with a cumulative 227,000 American lives saved over 20 years."

       Thank you in advance.

35600. Tom Curtis at 22:33 PM on 17 June 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
       

       derp @5, I'm curious as to which aspect of the cartoon you consider ad hominen?  Is it perhaps that the represented people are only just getting around to "for starters" after the paper reporting the storm damage has been written, printed and delivered (lower right corner)?  Or are we to take that as just another element of unreality introduced by the the nature of editorial cartoons rather than a specific barb?  Or is it that, like all other victims of hurricane damage, after immediate threats to life are dealt with, their first order of business is to get their business (or home) back in order?  There is an irony in the cartoon portrayal in that they do not reflect on the possible climate implications of Sandy, ie, are too focussed on their message to worry about evidence*, but is that an ad hominen?  If you think so, next you'll be insisting that calling deniers "pseudo-skeptics" or "so called skeptics" (let alone deniers) is also ad hominen.

       There is a point at which you must say that simple observations regarding, or accurate descriptions of, others are not ad hominens.  If they cause offense, it is only because the behaviour being observed or described is itself offensive, and the remedy is to be found in the person offended correcting their behaviour.

       (* Deniers would likely counter that the true irony is that the cartoonist cannot distinguish between a weather and a climate event.)

Prev  704  705  706  707  708  709  710  711  712  713  714  715  716  717  718  719  Next