Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 Next
Comments 36551 to 36600:
-
scaddenp at 11:45 AM on 16 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Tom, critical appraisal of papers is always very welcome. That is how science progresses. Its the disinformation and spurious/medacious critiques that are unwelcome and which the site exists to debunk. I would say worth getting clarification from Dessler.
(I cant imagine there is anyone who actually desires AGW to be real, but some prefer not to live in a fantasy either).
-
Tom Curtis at 10:34 AM on 16 May 2014Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
YahooMike @12, 0.2 C per year is a very large rate of warming. In fact it is 10 times the underlying (ignoring volcanic influences) predicted rate from the IPCC, which is approximately 0.2 C per decade. You may have misremembered the rate of warming the denier in question claimed.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:30 AM on 16 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Michael Sweet, Stephen Baines, thankyou for the compliments. As, however, I now find myself disagreeing with Dessler, they may not be deserved.
Dessler states that "...radiative forcing is +0.3 W/m2 in the late 19th century", which is a fair estimate for the 1880-1900 value if you ignore the effects of volcanism. Including the effects of volcanism makes the value distinctly negative, however. More importantly, it reduced the global mean surface temperature. Consequently simply using the underlying forcing would overestimate climate sensitivity (unless you had an appropriate compensation for the 1880-1900 energy balance, which Kummer and Dessler does not).
-
Tom Curtis at 10:19 AM on 16 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
Coolbreeze @16:
1) You are assuming that those who will suffer more will suffer more because of their poverty. That is only partly correct. Even if they had the same wealth as us, however, they would still suffer more on average because, as it turns out, the geographical locations in which the rich people live who have caused nearly all of the problems just happen to be the the geographical locations in which the largest detrimental impacts will be felt (on average).
2) That wealth will buffer (not insulate) you from the effects of climate change does not mean you will not suffer from climate change. Put differently, that the poor will suffer more does not imply the rich will not suffer. In fact, if things turn out poorly it is possible that even the rich will suffer sufficiently that the global economy will collapse. At that point the rich, who depend most on that economy, will suffer most. That is not a likely outcome with BAU (<33%), but it is a sufficiently plausible outcome that it should be included in our planning with regard to further fossil fuel use.
3) If all people in the world used fossil fuels at the rate of the EU (let alone the USA), climate change would be almost gaurantteed to collapse the world economy and would be a plausible risk of driving the Earth to near universal extinction. As it is a basic principle of morality "to do unto others as we would have them do unto us", it becomes unethical to use fossil fuels into the future at rates which cannot be sustained globally. It is even more unethical given the balance of benefits and risks. Not only do we preclude the poor from becoming rich through fossil fuel use by our rate of consumption, but we actively harm them by that consumption.
4) There is a strong relationship between energy use and wealth in a society. Cheap fossil fuels have allowed western society to become wealthy to a level beyond the imagination of all prior ages. That fossil fuel use, however, is a short term thing, even without climate change. Fossil fuels are a limited resource. Therefore it is incumbent on us to use the huge wealth gained from fossil fuel use to establish a sustainable energy economy. If we fail to do so, we condemn near future (<300 years) generations to an energy economy not much greater than that durring the renaisance - a level unable to sustain the rate of scientific research and investment needed to switch to a sustainable high energy economy.
Because of global warming, the time to begin the sustained switch from a FF to a sustainable high energy economy was 25 years ago. Even ignoring global warming it will occure within 30 years. Sing the praises of fossil fuels as much as you like, but they were always (and at most) a scaffold to the future. Don't make the mistake of thinking the scaffold is the tower it is used to construct - and absolutely do not invest so heavilly in the scaffold that you are left unable to lay the foundation of the tower.
-
citizenschallenge at 08:58 AM on 16 May 20146 major reports in a year: is it possible to have too much information about climate change?
gpwayne write: "In a raft of reports released over the last few months, there is so little room for doubt it makes climate change denial seem not just irresponsible, but plainly irrational." (criminal...)
I would add disconnected from the realities of our planet. As well as the realities of LEARNING as opposed to seeing everything as a political/ideological war.
~ ~ ~
It's not so much that they have their heads up their respectives arras - it's that they are totally brain-washed by media and consumerism - and have absolutely no conception of our Whole Earth planet. They refuse to look outside their bubble, and now that the view is getting seriously ugly all they can do is dig deeper and lash out with ever more shrill emotionality... as the reality slowly overtakes us all.
What a crying shame, we were blessed with all these brains, yet continue to allow our primal instincts to control us.
I mourn for my children and all the others too...
-
scaddenp at 07:01 AM on 16 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
I am somewhat stunned by your approach. I am sure that you would object if someone setup next to you and made lots of money while dousing you and your family in toxic emissions. If you reject the idea of taking responsibility of harm caused to others by your actions, then I cannot see how you can expect your views to be respected.
By your logic, the world should still be mining and using asbestos. The US economy grew strong on homegrown or cheap imported oil but I would say the 7bbl/day imported now is certainly not helping the US economy.
I also dont your logic. People are not poor because they dont use much fossil fuel - they dont use much fossil fuel because they are poor. I would strongly agree that you having a strong economy is good but its doesnt follow that the energy to drive it has to come from fossil fuel.
" even after environmental costs have been weighed." So can you point us to a study which supports this (and contradicts all the other studies saying the opposite).
-
KR at 04:17 AM on 16 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
Coolbreeze - So in your opinion your own self-interest justifies you saying "screw you" to those who will suffer directly due to that self-interest and your actions? That seems the very definition of irresponsible.
Some notes:
- Wealth (and energy) are key components in reducing poverty, in improving quality of living everywhere.
- The pursuit of that wealth via purely fossil fuel consumption leads to damages for everyone.
- Even if you have the wealth to mitigate those damages (ordering your food or coffee from a new country due to crop changes, for example), you are less wealthy as a result of that mitigation.
- Renewable energy has the promise of raising everyones wealth without the accompanying carbon detriments.
I'll just note that solar (growing 50-60% compounded annually over the last five years) and wind (30% growth rate over last decade) are, contrary to your assertion, economic stimulators.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:16 AM on 16 May 2014Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Arthur, did you go and investigate what they have done on the BEST project? Yes or no?
(updated to add the link again, just in case)
-
billthefrog at 02:55 AM on 16 May 20146 major reports in a year: is it possible to have too much information about climate change?
@ Graham's OP and ubrew's comment
"Surely that’s a message that everyone can understand?"
One would like to think so, but...
There's an old adage about the 3 wise monkeys that involves "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". For those who are sufficiently flexible, our simian cousins can be summarily dispensed with by the simple expedient of sticking one's head sufficiently far up one's own arras. (noun: an expensive tapestry or wall hanging, often depicting some imaginery scene.)
When people have adopted a passionately felt viewpoint based solely on pre-existing personal prejudices, or on the editorial prejudices of their chosen media outlet, then even the most rational argument is likely to fall on deaf ears. (Probably because their head is stuck so far up their own...)
Prior to his retirement from his position as Chief Oceanographer to the US Navy, Rear Admiral David Titley was very vocal in spreading the message that climate disruption over the coming decades represented a clear and present danger to security. Since subsequently taking up a directorial position with NOAA, his views have hardly shown any signs of softening.
When millions of educated people choose to ignore the unambiguous message that has been disseminated far and wide for many years, one has to ask "just what does it take to convince you?".
I was going to suggest the first unaccompanied transit straight across the Arctic basin - none of this Northern Sea Route nonsense - by an LNG supertanker. However, I suspect even that won't be nearly enough.
More likely it will be the way the great Max Plank described science as progressing "one funeral at a time".
On that cheerful note, I'm off to the fish'n'chips van.
-
Coolbreeze at 02:53 AM on 16 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
I see what you are saying, scaddenp and KR. But the following combination below is more likely to make me sing the praises of a fossil fuel burning economy and the lavish lifestyles it can support, rather than an economy based on wind and solar.
- Those contributing the least to the problem suffer from its effects the most
- Those contributing the least to the problem are also poor.
The lesson from this is to have money if you want to be insulated from climate change effects. In this country, the petroleum corporations have provided a good living for a lot of people. Meanwhile, the "green energy" lobby courts the government to build it up, using climate change as a motivator.
While wind and solar are viable sources of supplemental power, they just have not been the economic stimulator that petroleum has been in the U.S. The mountains of money generated by the petroleum industry still persuade much more strongly than the climate change talk of green energy companies, even after environmental costs have been weighed.
-
geoffrey brooks at 02:20 AM on 16 May 20146 major reports in a year: is it possible to have too much information about climate change?
No dispute about where the "planet is going wrong". There is a naive belief that we can continue doing the same things, just emitting a little bit less...hoping human ingenuity will get us out the woods. Unfortunately many dont know (especially American polkiticians) how lost we are in the woods and what they see as a political path forward - an unescapable human catastrophe.
We should be immediately planning to remove Carbon as the prime energy source (using very high C taxes to invest in the H future, and other alternatives). The best way is to use these taxes to go to the Hydrogen Economy as quickly as possible. Fusion power will help to save our planet - and keep all the carbon we have left, safely buried in the ground.
Fusion by 2035??
Lets get the AAAS and the ACS (+ others) to ensure that our "leaders" make the immense investment required - to unlock H energy & perhaps help save the planet.
(is it too late?)
-
DSL at 01:59 AM on 16 May 2014Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Arthur! Dangit! You almost made me ruin my keyboard. I was taking a drink.
No evidence. No post. bye bye.
-
Arthur123 at 01:56 AM on 16 May 2014Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Dikran Marsupial,
It isn't nonsense!
I have seen many articles documenting the adjustments to temperature records. In almost all the cases the past is temperatures are adjusted downward to eliminate any simlar periods of past warming. Take a look at what was recently done to historical climate data at Reykjavik, Greenland. This distortion of past climate record data is happening at many, many locations around the world. The US historical record is nothing to be proud of. The weathestation.org group has shown so many problems with sitting of monitoring equipement hear heat sources. Most of the data used by GISS is based on many many adjustments over time. Each adustment they make always enhances there arguement the earth/USA is getting warmer. The cat is out of the bag and the American public know the truth behind the AGW SCAM!
Moderator Response:[PS] Arthur, please review the comment policy. Conformance is not optional. Note the bit on allegations of deception. Discussions of the temperature record are at "Temp record is unreliable" and offtopic on water vapour. I would ask arthur and anyone responding to show him how he has been taken in by disinformers to move the discussion there.
I could also suggest Arthur that you actually read the science instead of the disinformaton for a bit so you dont make laughable comments which suggests scientists dont know about evaporative cooling. (eg look at the Trenberth Energy budget diagram)
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:35 AM on 16 May 2014Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Arthur123 wrote "There has been so much fudging on historical climate data by GISS and other government outlets to make the past look colder than today that I don't really see any evidence the eartth is really warming at any truely measureable rate."
You do know, don't you that the raw data is publically available, and that anybody who is skeptical of GISS can download the data (and indeed the code) and perform the analysis for themselves. Indeed a group of (initially) skeptical scientists actually went and did this and found that the nonsense about fudging historical climate data was just that - nonsense, as they got very similar results to the existing analyses.
-
Composer99 at 00:59 AM on 16 May 2014Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Arthur123: If your comment survives moderation, might I recommend you read more actual science rather than disinformation. I also recommend reviewing the Skeptical Science comments policy.
-
michael sweet at 00:59 AM on 16 May 2014It's cooling
According to the NCDC, last winter was the 62 coolest winter (December 2103-Feb 2014) in Vermont. On the other hand, it was the warmest ever recorded winter in California. Jetfuel needs to check his "facts" before he posts. They are currently having large wildfires in California since it was so warm in the winter. Globally (since it is called Global Warming) it was the eighth warmest Dec-Feb ever.
I will leave the other"facts" in place as the moderator asks.
-
Arthur123 at 00:47 AM on 16 May 2014Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
I have not read all these comments. There has been so much fudging on historical climate data by GISS and other government outlets to make the past look colder than today that I don't really see any evidence the eartth is really warming at any truely measureable rate. The HADCUT data shows no warming, the ARGOS ocean data shows no warming, Antartica is growing record ice, and the Arctic is showing some signs of ice growth too. Plus the USA just experienced one of the harshest winters of all recent times. If CO2 increases water vapor in the atmosphere than why are some blaming the west coast drought on AGW? The truth is these droughts have occurred many times in the historical past in the USA. A few years ago the Southeast was in severe drought. Not any more. The evaporation process in itself is a COOLING process so more evaporation more cooling not less. When precipitation falls latent is released back into the atmosphere. There is no net warming or cooling. The earth's atmosphere is a baroclinic system which is always trying to bring equilibrium to this dynamic system. Its this natural unbalance that keeps the system in motion and always unstable.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:11 AM on 16 May 2014It's cooling
@jetfuel It may have been a harsh winter in Vermont, however it was an unusually mild one in the U.K. However the plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to make an argument that it is cooling, fine, but present the data supporting your argument, not just cherry picked press stories.
As to Arctic sea ice extent. There are a variety of reasons that the annual "recovery" is increasing. The most obvious is that it is dark during much of the winter in the high Arctic and any open water is likely to freeze up. The smaller the September minimum, the more open water there is, the more first year ice will form. This isn't rocket science. As to why the March maximum is declining more slowly than the September minimum, I'd say it was a combination of at least two factors. Firstly it is dark in the high Arctic during much of the winter, so the "regional" greenhouse effect is relatively small as the Sun is not warming the surface. Secondly, when the ice pack is relatively solid during the winter, it will be less affected by Arctic weather, principally wind which pushes the ice about more in the summer when it is broken up, rather than more or less contiguous during the winter.
Moderator Response:[JH] Excellent advice. Unfortunately, jetfuel is unlikley to take it because he has been ignoring such advice since he began posting comments on SkS. I suggest that everyone completely ignore what jetfuel posts from here on out. I have recommended that jetfuel's comment privileges be rescinded.
-
ianw01 at 00:07 AM on 16 May 20146 major reports in a year: is it possible to have too much information about climate change?
Fundamentally the problem is time-related:
- There is a lag between CO2 emissions and significant consequences for ordinary people.
- The time scales involved are not easily grasped by ordinary people. In human terms, the change is a very slow-motion train wreck but in geological terms the changes are a near-instantaneous shock.
The (human-centric) question is how much pain and cost future generations will endure, and which generations get the worst of it.
We have been proven to be much better at helping people (spatially) near us than those on the other side of the world.
Climate change is test about being concerned for people far away in time.
-
DSL at 23:05 PM on 15 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #19
You are correct, BC! When I put the figure for April into my spreadsheet, I had left my guess for April in, and so I entered the new value as May's value. Gahhhh. Thanks for pointing that out. I was distracted! I have twins!
Moderator Response:[JH] Copy that. My wife's niece has triplets.
-
jetfuel at 22:47 PM on 15 May 2014It's cooling
US natural gas supplies are at an 11 year low. Jeffrey Folks article on American Thinker: "A recent report on natural gas usage during this past winter. For the first time, the U.S. burned more than 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas this winter, most of it for heating. That was more than the 2.3 trillion cf of 2012-13, and double that of 2011-12.
That evidence is irrefutable. We have lived through a winter of historic proportions – the coldest winter in Vermont’s long history, and the third-coldest for the city of Chicago. Gas futures also provide evidence about next winter.
Futures traders are highly sophisticated investors who base their trading on all known information. Futures traders care only about the facts. When they are right about the facts, they stand to make a great deal of money."
I took a survey on CO2 and found out a few things: I generate 4.6 tons of it per year. Unfortunately, the site told me my result was above the world average of 4.0 tons, and that we 6.6 Billion Earth inhabitants need to all cut back to an average of 2 tons each to stabilize current global CO2 levels. For me to get down to 2 tons, I need to bump my 32 mpg sedan up to 70 mpg without any factory participation and turn my house from 66 degrees down to about 50 degrees all through next winter, and set my a/c on 85 this summer. Then, if 6.6 Billion others each also cut their use in half, Moana Lau can hold steady at 401 ppm CO2.
Not going to happen, but the US is reducing CO2 production by 7% per year and we make about 7% of the human made CO2 in the world. I wonder how our 3 trillion cu ft of nat gas use compares to our gasoline use.
Moderator Response:[JH] Stop wondering and start researching. Google can be your best friend.
-
Alexandre at 22:22 PM on 15 May 20146 major reports in a year: is it possible to have too much information about climate change?
We need more of this, much more. Scientific institutions coming forward and saying clearly what they know, and how large a consensus this is. There should be billboards and TV ads saying this.
Moderator Response:[JH] Once George Soros' check clears, SkS will move forward on your suggestion. (Tongue-in-cheek humor)
-
chriskoz at 21:23 PM on 15 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Stephen@22,
I assume you're joking. On a serious note, being on the "wrong side of a debate" (with Tom or anyone else) can be a rewarding experience if you're open minded and want to learn. If you're afraid of a rational debate, you never learn anything. The trick is to know what is logical & rational and follow rational argumentation while rebutting the irrational. If you're wrong, ratinal arguments eventually teach you to change your mind.
-
BC at 21:02 PM on 15 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #19
I'm glad to see that the Weekly News Roundup announcement has been rescinded, although I can see the difficulty with making a selection from such a wide choice and that it would be time consuming to do it.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thanks for the positive feedback. There will only be one News Roundup this week because my youngest daughter is getting married on Sat (US). The posting of Weekly Digest #20 may be postponed 'til Mon (US).
-
BC at 20:43 PM on 15 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #19
DSL,
Isn't the 2010 April figure higher?
I like checking out this page which gives an interesting monthly analysis -
www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/
See the 'Monthly Analysis' about a quarter of the way down. The new monthly figures come out on the 14th, give or take. This page can also be reached from
Then click on the top graph, followed by the 'page 2' link in the second line.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:39 PM on 15 May 201497% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Uncomfortable as it makes me, I have to agree with tlitb1 on this one. In partuclar, in stating that he understated his claims in the paper to get past peer review, Shaviv did not state that the claims in their understated form did not reject AGW. Further, in the abstract, Shaviv clearly asserts a climate sensitivity of 0.35 K/W/M^2 (equivalent to 1.3 C per doubling of CO2), and asserts that solar effects including indirect effects through changes in cosmic ray intensity are responsible for 0.47 K of the increase in temperature over the twentieth century. Using AR4 figures, that is 0.47 out of 0.7 K. Both of these should have been sufficient to classify the abstract as rejecting AGW.
The Shaviv paper just happens to be one of the demonstrably small number of mistakes in classification in Cook et al. It is silly to think that a project like the Consensus Project would be mistake free. What is remarkable about the project is how few the mistakes were, and how little impact (if any) they have on the headline result.
-
KR at 15:53 PM on 15 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
Cool breeze - There is no contradiction, and I don't see why that statement should disillusion you.
The global poor contribute the least to AGW due to their low per capita energy use, and due to their thinner margins for agriculture, water, and the income with which to adapt, they will be the most impacted by climate change.
This connects to an inverted position really puzzles me - Roy Spencer, for example, has been going on about mitigation efforts harming the poor, when it's really the Business As Usual (BAU) approach that he promotes that will do the most damage to the poor he seemingly champions... He seems to live in a backwards Bizzaro world.
-
scaddenp at 14:59 PM on 15 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
I still dont follow. The people who need to install wind/solar are the rich countries. I'm not quite sure why you link low/no emission tech and economic prosperity. The two dont seem linked to me, except that if we dont move to a low/no emission power generation then the costs of adapting to climate change will do economic damage (and a great deal worse to poor countries). The poor contribute less to emissions, not because they use low emission technology, but because they use less energy.
-
Coolbreeze at 14:38 PM on 15 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
@ scaddenp: Because , stating that people contributing the least to climate change are poor does not give low/no emission technology (wind and solar power) a reputation of economic prosperity.
-
scaddenp at 13:51 PM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
"IMHO the predicted physics are not playing out, and the paleoclimate record demonstrates cyclical phenomena (albeit without a human overlay)"
That would seem to be an example then of choosing your own interpretation of predicted physics and denying the published papers instead. In my understanding of the paleoclimate record, what is obvious is that the climate changes in response to changes in forcing. Claiming what we see is an unforced cycle would require an interesting interpretation of conservation of energy when you look at OHC. I, with others, would like you to present the science that backs your claim as well as asking again where the "over the top" predictions in the IPCC are. Since you are a scientist, then surely you base your humble opinion on actual data and/or published analysis of data.
-
ubrew12 at 13:26 PM on 15 May 20146 major reports in a year: is it possible to have too much information about climate change?
"Surely that’s a message that everyone can understand?" Surely, I get you. But you need to stop trying to convince me, and try convincing my invisible hand. (/sarcasm, I wish, but too many are thinking that way).
-
John Hartz at 12:58 PM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
A friendly reminder - Dogpiling is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please let Terranova respond to Steven Barnes and DSL before posting a comment on his initial and subsequent posts.
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
-
DSL at 12:47 PM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
What, Terranova, has been responsible for the trend in GMST since 1960? It's not the sun. What is it if not the enhanced greenhouse effect? Is this "not playing out" simply the result of the trend doing something, over the last six years, that the models--which were not designed to provide subdecadal accuracy--did not project? I have a feeling the upcoming El Nino is going to breed several new species of meme that will replace "it hasn't warmed since X."
I will call you "in denial" if you refuse to provide evidence and, in your analysis, refuse to acknowledge and account for evidence provided by others. This is what the paid denialists do--the James Taylors, Tim Harrises, and Christopher Moncktons of the world. They have no interest in scientific progress. They attack simply to shape public opinion in the interests of their employers. It's easy to tell when someone is only interested in shutting up the science, ending it, silencing it. The comparison with open, evidence-based dialogue is night and day.If I were you, Terranova, I'd spend less time worrying about what people are labeling you and spend more time continuing to read the science, letting it take you wherever it takes you, regardless of your existing politics. I don't want "IMHO." I want the evidence you used to get there. Maybe I've missed something. Maybe it's important. Maybe you can tell me.
-
Stephen Baines at 12:42 PM on 15 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Seconded. I only hope I'm never on the wrong side of a debate with Tom. He's downright scary...in a good way!
-
Stephen Baines at 12:37 PM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
terranova,
You are going to have to be more specific about "doom and gloom predictions" and "the physics not playing out" and "cyclic phenomena" or it will be hard to take you seriously, regardless of your background. In so doing, take care to take such questions to specific threads related to them. We will follow you. We (well, mostly others) are here to discuss the science.
Moderator Response:[JH] You literally took the words right out of my mouth - excellent advice.
Terranova has dropped in to chat on the comment threads of SkS articles multiple times over the past few years. It is not clear to me what exactly he is trying to accomplish. Is it to learn? Is it to lecture? Debate? Perhaps he will be kind enough to explain.
-
Terranova at 12:12 PM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
scaddenp, IMHO the predicted physics are not playing out, and the paleoclimate record demonstrates cyclical phenomena (albeit without a human overlay).
Moderator Response:[JH] What exactly is your IMHO based on? Please cite sources.
-
scaddenp at 11:41 AM on 15 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
Coolbreeze - I am having trouble understanding why statements that people contributing least to climate change were also poor would destroy your enthusiam for wind and solar?? Doesnt make sense. I think the statement is true - the countries with lowest emissions (especially lowest emission per capita) are also among the poorest.
-
michael sweet at 11:03 AM on 15 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Dessler says that the mistake is similar to Tom's description with a small increase in the calculated climate sensitivity (as Tom suggested). Apparently the paper has not yet been published so changes are being made in the gally proofs. Dessler states the conclusion that aerosol sensitivity needs to be addressed is unaffected.
Good job Tom!
-
dagold at 10:49 AM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
On the topic of humor in the service of climate awareness, here is my latest HuffPost article, published today: "Interview With a Climate Vampire", a parody piece send-up of an interview with a denialist organization. I even reference SKS's "Hiroshima" widget for the 2nd time in one of my articles. Feel very free to re-print on SKS if the fancy stirkes you! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidgoldstein/interview-with-a-climate-change_b_5325343.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Coolbreeze at 10:38 AM on 15 May 2014CO2 limits will hurt the poor
"Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change."
This is what destroyed my enthusiasm for wind and solar energies in 2010. I attended a green jobs workshop in which a representative of Apollo Alliance made the above statement. When I asked him about that, he mentioned that the people contributing the least to climate change were also poor. I am not sure where Apollo Alliance found that guy.
-
tlitb1 at 09:50 AM on 15 May 201497% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Though Shaviv also admitted that Cook et al. correctly classified his abstracts based on their content, but claimed that he worded the text in a way to slip it past the journal reviewers and editors.
I went through that link in that statement and don't see anywhere Shaviv agreeing that Cook et al. correctly classified his abstract of his paper "On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget" . And neither, as far as I can see, does the following point Shaviv makes there regarding the wording of the abstract imply he agrees :
"I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper.”
Is there some other statement by Shaviv I may have missed where he clearly says he agrees with the Cook et al rating of his abstract?
The main reason I ask is because I recently checked out the Schulte consensus paper (that overlapped with Cook et al), and saw that it had categorised the Shaviv paper as rejecting the consensus. I then checked its Cook et al rating and was surprised to see it was instead classified as endorsing the consensus.
I would have agreed witht the Schulte rating and although the abstract is rejecting the consensus. Or at least not supporting it. This last past part of the Shaviv absrract seems to put it outside.
Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04°K.
Doesn't the above key passage clearly indicate the paper holds a thesis that there is a greater proportion (>50%) increase in recent temperature rise that is not explained by anthropogenic causes and so puts it clearly outside the consensus?
-
Dean at 06:39 AM on 15 May 2014Sense and climate sensitivity – more evidence we're in for a hot future
Dessler has answered Lewis' critique at http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/#comment-924
It seems like it was a technical mistake but that the effect was that the revised sensitivity became slightly higher.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:12 AM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
BTW the other way science deals with bad papers is for someone to write a peer reviewed comment paper for the journal explaining the errors. As it happens, I did exactly that for one of the papers on the list of 10 (Essenhigh). I'd be very happy to discuss the science with you on the appproprate thread.
However, quite a lot of work is involved in writing a comment paper and the reward is pretty much nil, which is why it is not that common these days, so even for a really bad paper you should not expect a refutation to appear in the journal. Simply ignoring bad papers is the standard operating procedure.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:08 AM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
Bart Strengers wrote wrote "Albert Einstein would say that 1 is enough."
only if it were correct.
"Actually there are 15 more in category 6. What do these studies say and why did they pass the peer review process?"
because peer review is only a sanity check, and even then is conducted by human beings that make mistakes. Getting through peer review is the first step towards acceptance of a paper by the research community, not the last. A nect step is to look to see what papers have cited it. Science has a good way of dealing with the odd really bad paper which makes it through peer review, which is to ignore it. Sadly the blogsphere has a tendency to focuss on them and not let them go (this doesn't just apply to climate change).
Essentially if a peer reviewed paper has been ignored by the research community (and not cited) or has recieved
-
franklefkin at 01:37 AM on 15 May 20142013 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
When are 2014 predictions going to happen?
-
Bob Lacatena at 00:33 AM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
Bart, here are the 10. A quick read of their abstracts shows that they are indefensible garbage that should never have been published, and many got in by being submitted to "Energy" journals rather than climate science journals (i.e. they gamed the system by finding editors "friendly" to their results).
For example, one claims this:
The author suggests that neither modeling nor analyzing the resulting data show the presence of warming in the World Ocean; hence, there is no global warming in the atmosphere either.
Another has this childish observation to make:
The authors believe that recent global warming of Earth’s atmosphere is not due to an increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission but rather to long-term global factors. The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission.
Look at them all. They're an embarrassing joke.
-
Bart Strengers at 00:03 AM on 15 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
@Curtis
I understand your point, but I am still curious which studies John was talking about. (Or does he refer to them in his paper?)
-
Tom Curtis at 22:47 PM on 14 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
Bart Strengers @9, the peer review process is a spam filter for scientists. There are so many scientists and non-scientists wanting to publish their theories that if they all were published, any scientist wanting to keep up with the literature would be swamped by a sea of ridiculous, crackpot or poorly researched papers and have little time for the good papers that truly advance the science. This first started being a problem early in the twentieth century, so early in the twentieth century various journals started taking steps to weed out the pseudo-scientific spam. Those steps developed into the modern peer review system, in which, in order to be published you need to convince just three people (and editor and two peer reviewers) that your research is not obviously wrong. If you don't convince the first three you try, you can submit to another journal and try there. And again, and again.
Once you have been published in peer review, you have the imprimature of those three people that your theory is:
1) Not transparently wrong;
2) Does not include any obvious errors that can be picked up without redoing the maths;
3) Is well enough written that other people have a reasonable chance of determining what you did, and repeating it if they want to.
For most science publications, there may be some other criteria, ie, that it deals with a particular fairly general subject, that it challenges current views, that it can be communicated briefly, and so on, but no journal requires all, or even most of these additional criteria.
Fairly obviously, the first three criteria are not onerous. So like all spam filters, the peer review system sometimes lets spam through. The system works fairly well, so that the amount of spam tends to be very limitted. As some does get through, and as the general criteria are not that onerous, that is were the second tier or peer review comes in, ie, the response or otherwise of other scientists in the related field. and how much it effects the related field. Nearly all skeptical papers fair poorly in that regard.
In any event, the way most skeptical papers get published is that they are examples of some of the spam that gets through - in some cases through deliberate attempts to game the system. Some, on the other hand, are older papers that were on the cutting edge of the debate at the time of publication, but which subsequent publications have shown to be flawed.
-
Bart Strengers at 22:16 PM on 14 May 201497% - A Statistically Representative Debate On Global Warming
Great video indeed!
However, a sceptic might say: this Cook study shows there are 10 studies in the category 7 (i.e. against AGW in a quantified manner). Albert Einstein would say that 1 is enough. Actually there are 15 more in category 6. What do these studies say and why did they pass the peer review process?
-
YahooMike at 15:13 PM on 14 May 2014Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
I participate in YA global warming forum and the deniers there always drop "statistically significant" but he went on to say the average warming for the period I think was 0.2C yearly which is a slight warning
Just another case of cherrypicking
Prev 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 Next
