Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 Next
Comments 35651 to 35700:
-
Jim Hunt at 23:20 PM on 19 June 2014Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
Whilst we're debating semantics I used the term "dangerous climate change" in the article because that's the phrase used by the UK Met Office, who were one of the organisers of the conference. See for example:
http://econnexus.org/can-global-warming-be-limited-to-two-degrees/
-
billthefrog at 21:19 PM on 19 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
Further to what DSL just stated, I've recently posted something to that effect on Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog. In addition to May 2014 being 0.06 C above the previous record (2010 and 2012 jointly), the March-April-May quarter was LOTI's second highest at 0.07 C below 2010. (And 0.04 above the next highest.)
It could be premature to look toward the devoloping el Nino just yet, but NOAA's 3.4 index might just have started to edge towards positive numbers. (It could be transient, or it could be the start of something.)
If the next 7 months LOTI figures match their 2013 equivalents, the Jan-Dec average will be about 3rd on the list. On the other hand, as DSL has pointed out, the average for the first 5 months already matches the 2010 J-D figures. So, will there be a significant el Nino event later this year, and, if so, what will it do to these numbers?
Get your (crystal) balls out.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:18 PM on 19 June 2014Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
denisaf, the fact that society has committed itself to a substantial degree to its infrastructure does not change the fact that it is anthropogenic climate disruption. I don't see how that argument means that Anrthopogenic Climate Disruption is a misleading term. The infrastructure is anthropogenic, any climate disruption that is caused by the infrastructure is likewise anthropogenic.
-
denisaf at 21:00 PM on 19 June 2014Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
Anthropogenic Climate Disruption is a misleading term. The greenhouse gas emissions that are the major cause of climate disruption are due to the operation of technological systems (power stations, vehicles, etc.). There is a commitment for this infrastructure to continue to use fossil fuels as long as it exists. Humans have only made the decisions about the construction and operation of this infrastructure. They cannot decide to cancel that commitment!
-
denisaf at 20:47 PM on 19 June 2014Transformational Climate Science at Exeter University
2C warming is mentioned. I understood it was qualified as 2C of warming by the end of the century. This is consistent with the view that warming will continue as long the atmospheric concentration level (currently 400 ppm) is so high that it continues to act (has Hansen termed it) as a blanket. Increased emissions into the oceans will not totally offset the continuing emissions from fossil fuel usage even when they are reduced by sounder energy policies. There is too much infrastructure committed to using fossil fuels for this rate of usage to decrease rapidly.
-
scaddenp at 20:08 PM on 19 June 201497% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
I would also point out the accusations of " sycophant research" is simply empty rhetoric - a dismissive to hide that fact that there is no counter-theory, and at odds with the mass of hard data collection that is the core of climate research.
FF companies have the scientists, the money, computer power and the motiviation to find alternative theories. Instead they invest in PR. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because of what their own scientists tell them? I work in petroleum science - denialists are rare among scientists.
-
ubrew12 at 19:43 PM on 19 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25A
chriskoz@1: I think, in a nutshell, that's the purpose of this website, and of others like it. "Why, indeed, is this happening?" is what Cook and others (Peter Sinclair at climate crocks) have been asking, and the answers have been illuminating about human behavior and the 'calculus' by which vested commercial interests prey upon societies understanding of 'truth' in service to their profitability.
Changing the subject, I really enjoyed the Ecowatch article 'So you want to change the World? Better read this first.' about how societies really only change when infrastructural requirements (resource depletion, new technologies), force them to (and that this is one of those times). It's illuminating to see modern trends put in a 'cultural anthropologists' perspective. A quote: "How can you know if your idea fits the emerging infrastructure? There’s no hard and fast rule, but your idea stands a good chance if it assumes we are moving toward a societal regime with less energy and less transport (and that is therefore more localized); if it can work in a world where climate is changing and weather conditions are extreme and unpredictable; if it provides a way to sequester carbon rather than releasing more into the atmosphere; and if it helps people meet their basic needs during hard times." From here on out, 'may you live in interesting times' is our fate. It's useful to have such thinkers working to provide a useful guide to how to respond to these challenges.
-
chriskoz at 19:19 PM on 19 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25A
Within '6 ways the planet is different than the one your dad was born into', I found the 'Unprecedented' Climate Extremes in Last Decade by WMO, where they show decadal temp trends. And indeed, the 2001-10 decade shows the largest trend to date (at the extreme value of last 4 decades since 70s when AGW really kicked off). Given that data from WMO, it's mind bogling why the "global warming stopped in last 17y" meme is still alive. Why people are so irrational, that they still believe is such nonsense?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 17:52 PM on 19 June 2014Ice picks: Five pieces of ice news revealing earth’s ice cover is in serious decline
jetfuel wrote "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."
not necessarily. While Greenland is topographically like a bowl, the rim is not of equal height around the edge, which means that rivers could form, eroded in the gound under the ice, that transport the meltwater to the sea. These seem quite evident in the figure above, e.g. on the West coast at about 68 North. The fact that any "inland sea" that forms under the ice would be under several kilometers of ice sheet pressing down on it, suggests it will be unlikely to have a very great volume, so it is not a given that large amounts of meltwater can pool there.
The fact that independent measurements show that there is ice loss in Greenland suggests there is a flaw in your theory that suggests there is little or none.
-
chriskoz at 15:12 PM on 19 June 2014Ice 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.
-
KR at 13:34 PM on 19 June 201497% 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).
-
jetfuel at 11:40 AM on 19 June 2014Ice 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
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:27 AM on 19 June 201497% 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.
-
Mal Adapted at 09:38 AM on 19 June 201497% 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.
-
Andy Skuce at 09:31 AM on 19 June 2014In 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.
-
scaddenp at 09:29 AM on 19 June 201497% 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?
-
scaddenp at 09:21 AM on 19 June 201497% 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.
-
scaddenp at 08:27 AM on 19 June 201497% 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?
-
KR at 08:26 AM on 19 June 201497% 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.
-
Synapsid at 08:26 AM on 19 June 20142014 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?
-
likeithot at 08:06 AM on 19 June 201497% 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 -
DSL at 01:51 AM on 19 June 20142014 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.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:00 AM on 19 June 201497% 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.
-
KR at 00:41 AM on 19 June 201497% 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.
-
KR at 00:29 AM on 19 June 201497% 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
-
Jim Hunt at 22:29 PM on 18 June 2014Transformational 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:
-
Terranova at 22:14 PM on 18 June 2014In 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.
-
Jim Hunt at 22:13 PM on 18 June 2014Transformational 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.
-
MA Rodger at 21:35 PM on 18 June 2014Over 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.
-
foolonthehill at 19:31 PM on 18 June 20142014 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...)
-
derp at 18:23 PM on 18 June 20142014 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.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 17:08 PM on 18 June 201497% 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.
-
likeithot at 16:29 PM on 18 June 201497% 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.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:15 PM on 18 June 201497% 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.
-
Paul C at 14:00 PM on 18 June 2014The 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.
-
chriskoz at 13:45 PM on 18 June 20142014 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.
-
Magma at 13:40 PM on 18 June 2014Transformational 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/
-
Composer99 at 13:29 PM on 18 June 2014First 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.
-
chriskoz at 13:24 PM on 18 June 2014Transformational 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?
-
Paul C at 13:23 PM on 18 June 2014Record 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.
-
Paul C at 13:21 PM on 18 June 2014Record 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.
-
Paul C at 13:17 PM on 18 June 2014First Look at HadCRUT4
Lets look at the period from 2003 to 2014 and put a trend line in over the last ten years.
-
Ben Rose at 11:47 AM on 18 June 2014In 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.
-
MThompson at 09:54 AM on 18 June 20142014 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.
-
likeithot at 09:25 AM on 18 June 201497% 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.
-
likeithot at 09:15 AM on 18 June 2014Over 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.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:50 AM on 18 June 201497% 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.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:46 AM on 18 June 2014Over 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.
-
likeithot at 08:29 AM on 18 June 2014Over 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
-
scaddenp at 08:02 AM on 18 June 20142014 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).
Prev 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 Next
