Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 Next
Comments 39101 to 39150:
-
Tom Curtis at 08:39 AM on 24 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
franklefkin @11, it is true that out of all seven global temperature indices you can find one that does not show a positive trend over the last 17 years. However, the reason it is different is well known.
First, satellite measurements, which measure a weighted average of the air temperature from the surface to over 10 km of altitude (with different weights over land and ocean) are more strongly effected by ENSO fluctuations than instrumental records. There are multiple lines of evidence showing that ENSO fluctations are the major cause of the reduction in the short term global temperature trend. Being effected more, this means that satellite trends show a greater reduction in that trend.
Second, the RSS temperature index excludes the high arctic, most of Antarctica, the Himalayas, parts of the Andes and part of Greenland. The former are excluded because the satellite is never over those positions, while the latter are excluded because their altitude is too great for effective measurement. The high arctic is one of the most rapidly warming places on Earth, and excluding it also contributes to a reduced trend in RSS.
So while it is possible to cherry pick one out of seven indices to make a point, it is an obvious cherry pick, and one that exacerbates the cherry pick in using a temperature peak high above trend as a start point for known reasons. Even so, the RSS indice includes the AR4 predicted trend within its uncertainty range.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:19 AM on 24 January 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
cpslashm @274, your theory is superficially attractive, but as it turns out the total energy going into ice melt is very small relative to the total energy being absorbed at the Earth's surface due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Most (approx 90%) of that excess energy is being absorbed by the ocean. There is no reason why increased ice melt would draw that energy exclusively from the atmosphere, so it is very unlikely that your theory is correct.
As it happens, base on a number of different lines of evidence, the major cause of the reduced rate of increase of global surface temperatures has been a switch from El Nino dominated conditions to La Nina conditions. A further contributor, especially to the reduction in temperature indices that exclude the Arctic, has been a recent pattern of colder winters in mid-northern latitudes and warmer winters in very high latitudes. Because the warmer high latitude winters are not included in the observations, this shows up as a reduced overall rate of warming. There is an apparent connection to ice melt in this pattern, in that evidence suggests it is a lack of ice cover on the Arctic ocean causing this pattern. Finally, some recent volcanoes, an increase in anthropogenic aerosol emissions and reduced solar radiation have also contributed to the reduced short term temperature trend.
The exact contribution of each of these factors has not yet been determined. Indeed, there is some possibility that the combination of these factors explains more than the observed reduction in trend, ie, that the short term temperature trend would have accelerated were it not for this concatenation of factors.
-
cpslashm at 07:26 AM on 24 January 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
I'm no climate scientist andI like to keep things simple. Some things seem obvious.
Take a four-year rolling mean of the global surface temperature data. In the early 2000s it suddenly shoots off to the right. Let's assume the temperature rise has gone on holiday for a while, where did the heat go?
Take a four-year rolling mean of the PIOMAS annual minimum volume data. From the late 1980s to the early 2000s there's a reasonably linear trend of around -250 km^3 of ice lost per year. From the early 2000s to the present there's a linear trend of around -700km^3 (equivalent to more than 2*10^20J) per year.
All that heat is being absorbed in a constant-temperature process (melting ice). The latter trend line hits zero around 2017 (mid rolling year), so the heat will have no-where to go without increasing temperature somewhere. I suspect Arctic (and possibly global) temperatures will rise until the Greenland ice sheet can be pursuaded to lose 700km^3 per year, resulting in another, longer, pause in temperature rise.
If the correlation of this amateur spreadsheed graph analysis has validity, we'll find out what happens to global crop production under these new conditions within five years.
A graph I found of the global glacial mass anomaly also appears to have a kink, but I lack the original data to play with.
And no I don't know why a current four-year cycle seems to give a good fit.
That's my tuppence worth.
-
Tom Dayton at 07:04 AM on 24 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
And the Rabbett described how Curry argued against herself; either she does not remember or she adjusts her statements of conviction to match her goal.
-
plg at 06:58 AM on 24 January 2014It’s all a Question of Balance
An idea for a graphic (I do not draw well, but I like visualizing and scribbling on a whiteboard):Imagine two kids sitting on a seesaw, in perfect balance; then one is given a big soda and the seesaw tips over... Now put two very fat men on the seesaw, and hand one of them a soda; the seesaw tips over just in the same way, i.e. the weights do not matter, only the weight difference in absolute terms. (the pressure on the ground is the same in both cases, exactly one soda bottle).Minor quibble: it takes longer for the fat men to reach a new equilibrium, but the end result is the same. -
Tom Dayton at 06:56 AM on 24 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
More on Curry's testimony at And Then There's Physics. And more by John Nielsen-Gammon.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:52 AM on 24 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
DD, Tamino just posted solid evidence of Curry's disingenuouness in saying we don't know whether sea level rise has accelerated in the past 150 years or so.
-
scaddenp at 06:50 AM on 24 January 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Much of this idea about "falsfiability" actually comes back to models. Those screaming about lack of proof conveniently ignore all the obvious direct tests made long ago because they dont falsify the theory as hoped. Instead this is an expectation that climate theory will predict tomorrow's weather and bitching because the failure of climate models to do this doesnt seem to count as falsification. It is important to realise that the theory could be right but models could be wrong, but more importantly, models are predicting long term trends (remarkably well) and dont pretend to have any skill at predicting decadal trends.
Its worth having a look at the papers in "empirical evidence for global warming". The Evans 2006 paper (and similar by Harries, Chen etc) are pretty direct experiments that would have returned different results if AGW was wrong.
-
michael sweet at 06:22 AM on 24 January 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Jacklongley,
In 1896 Arhennius predicted that the land would warm faster than the ocean, the Northern Hemisphere faster than the Southern, the night faster than the day, the Arctic faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, and the winter faster than the summer. If any of the predictions did not work out that might be considered a "falsification" by those who make this argument. In the 120 years since his predictions, the measured data show he was correct on all of them. Can you suggest an alternate theory that explains these observations? Skeptics have provided no alternate thory. There are myriad other more recent predictions of climate science that can be found, but Arhennius is so strong an argument that it seems not worth the trouble to look them up.
-
Tom Dayton at 06:10 AM on 24 January 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Dikran's list is sufficient, but there are several places where folks have discussed in more detail. One is at Climate Sight.
-
StBarnabas at 06:08 AM on 24 January 2014Tony Eggleton offers an excellent introduction to climate change
John
looks very good, but a bit expensive. Any discounts for sks contributors? Will try to get my University library to syock a few copies
Sean
-
JohnSeers at 06:07 AM on 24 January 2014Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Your PDF link:
"recent attention has recently been going around the web concerning a new “paper” done by Joseph E. Postma (PDF here)"
is not valid. Please fix.
-
StBarnabas at 05:22 AM on 24 January 2014It’s all a Question of Balance
Glenn
nice article. I would prefer replacing "The strength of sunlight at the Earth’s orbital distance from the Sun is equal to around 341 Watts for every square meter of the Earth’s surface." With "On average..." Or on average over a day/year........" I am used to thinking of 1kWm^-2 in sunlight (1.5 ATM) as I so a lot of work on PV, but of course if you integrate over a sphere etc. Just a thought?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:31 AM on 24 January 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
P.S. there is a good reason why Google doesn't show much of interest, which is that it anyone who understands falsifiability and the physics of the greenhouse effect can immediately see why it is directly falsifiable. The question is largely used in the debate for rhetorical, rather than scientific reasons.
I suspect Tom Curtis would be able to give a very satisfactory answer on this one.
-
franklefkin at 04:31 AM on 24 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
Tom Curtis @10
It is also noteworthy to point out that if you put in the same 1997 start date in RSS, you get a trend of -0.013 +/- 0.201. So it can be stated that it is flat or even negative!
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:30 AM on 24 January 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Falsification just means that it is possible to falsify a theory if it is false. This means the theory must exclude the possibility of some event. There is little more to it than that. In the case of the basic element of AGW is the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the theory suggest that in the absence of any other change in the forcings that could explain it, a cooling trend on a centennial scale would be impossible while CO2 concontrations continue to rise at a non-negligible rate. This means that the thoery is falsifiable because there is an observaton (centennial cooling trend) that is excluded by the theory. Of course there could be quibbling about the length of the trend required and the rate of increase of CO2 etc., but the idea of falsifiability assumes that both parties are acting in a rational and fair manner to determine the exact details of the test. Hope this helps.
-
jacklongley at 04:17 AM on 24 January 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
As a skeptical person in general, I haven't really made my mind up either way. But this idea of falsifiability seems particularly elusive. I've been searching for the current definitions of falsfiability for global climate change theories with little luck. Is there any resources that summarizes that aspect of the debate? Google has been no help at all, in that regard.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:27 AM on 24 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
I re-read my post #4, I could not find any insult. However, I see how my point could have been missed, so I'll rephrase.
I am wondering why anyone would read a blog post by some dude who has no expertise in a subject and immediately think that this dude may be on to something that all the experts of an organ specialized in studying that subject have missed. It is possible, but unlikely enough to trigger high skepticism. A true skeptic attitude would consist of applying, by default, a healthy level of scrutiny toward the accusation from the dude who, by default, should not be given more (or even as much as) credibility than those he accuses.
When I see instead someone saying what amounts to: looks like NOAA may be messing with us (as this is exactly what Poster initially said in other words), it pretty much sets that person as a pseudo-skeptic. This seems so self evident to me, I don't know how to even explain it. My question to Poster is: Why would Goddard not be subjected to the highest level of scrutiny, even if one doesn't know his dismal history of incompetence? And if one did not do that, why would he be surprised to be poo-pooed when bringing Goddard's garbage here, where due scrutiny has been applied to this kind of nonsense for years.
Poster is acting all offended, but really, when faced with the reality of what Goddard is and has done, would the appropriate response not be something: "OK, sorry I did not know that this guy was such a joke." That would have been my response.
I concede that Poster could construe SkS contributor's tone as condescending, but it was not without reason. As far as the overall tone of the site, Watts and McI continuously encourage accusations of fraud and innuendo of all kinds. Watts has encouraged his readers to go harass scientists in person. McI has organized a campaign of harassment through FOI requests that had no precedent, explaining to his readers how to set up straw accounts to send requests from every country on Earth. Curry has tolerated posts recommending the summary execution of climate scientists, under the excuse that it was all in good fun. In comparison, SkS is a haven of sanity and maturity. In fact, to one who has followed this "debate" for years, there is no comparison possible.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:03 AM on 24 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
That is not to say that I don't recommend hanging out at ATTP, quite the reverse!
BTW This discussion is clearly off topic, so I am very happy to have my posts moderated.
Moderator Response:[JH] The comment threads for both the weekly digests and the weekly news roundups are basically open threads. Your dialogue with Poster is therefore not off topic.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:55 AM on 24 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster, it is dissapointing that you should respond to my well-intentioned advice by again insulting SkS by suggesting that we are immature. Now this may not be what you meant, but it is what you wrote. It may be your subjective opinion, but that does not mean that it is a good idea to actually voice it, or indeed to your own advantage.
I get a lot of flack when I post at WUWT, I make an effort to be careful in what I write there to make sure that I am not exacerbating the situation, whilst still contributing to progress towards the truth. I speak from experience, I have no interest in argumentative debate; I'd much prefer to have gentlemanly discussion of the science, and sometimes you need to restrain yourself, if only so that you can be sure that it is not you that is causing the problem.
"An eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind" at least at SkS the worst injury you are likely to get is forthright language, so following this maxim shouldn't be that difficult. -
Poster9662 at 00:45 AM on 24 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
I realise I should know when to shut up or at least not respond. From a brief look the posters at ATTP seem more balanced and more mature those at SKS. That of course is a subjective opinion which I hope (perhaps in vain) will be treated as such. As indeed is Dikran Marsupial's opinion which too is subjective. The final sentence is made as a result of the antagonism at SKS where those that may not be quite so sure of the cause of climate change as are the majority of posters to SKS, are subjected to quite venomous excoriation .
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repetition -- both of which are banned by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:30 PM on 23 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
Warren Hindmarsh @9, it is fairly easy to debunk the two fictions you mention by simply pointing out that they are fictions. This can be seen easilly for the satellite data on the SkS trend calculator. Just set the platform to UAH, and the start year to 1997.0 and you will see the trend is 0.93 +/- 0.208 C/decade. The central estimate, therefore is strongly positive, and while negative trends are not excluded, neither are trends 50% stronger than those predicted by the IPCC. Calling such a trend "a halt in the warming" at best shows a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of error bars.
Even worse is the misrepresentation of the ARGO measurements, which are shown here in red:
Some people have misrepresented the ARGO data by only showing the 0-700 meter Ocean Heat Content, ie, by excluding 65% of the data. Excluding data like that because you do not like what it shows is fraudulent. Arguable, so also is the massive cherry pick involved in selecting 1997 (a very strong El Nino year, with temperatures far above trend rates) as a start year for your comparison.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 21:32 PM on 23 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
How does one properly debunk the fact that accurate satellite measurements have shown a halt in the warming over the last 17years or so? ARGO measurements show much the same thing.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:15 PM on 23 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster, I should just point out that if you want the tone to be less antagonistic, perhaps you should review the tone of your own posts. Suggesting that SkS is antagonistic is fine, but do you really think that suggesting that this is due to insecurity is likely to make the tone less antagonistic? Likewise the final sentence of your post. This is offered as well-intentioned advice.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 17:48 PM on 23 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
DD @ 15, have a look at Curry's page here on SkS, for an indication of her - shall we say - unreliability. When someone with her qualifications and access to resources serially misinforms, she may fairly be called a misinformer.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 17:38 PM on 23 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #3
As this is a thread about cliamte in the news, I found this article at The Conversation today. More of the same from the dnialisti in the comments, of course, but the article is interesting in its own right.
-
Poster9662 at 16:12 PM on 23 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Thanks for the advice Garethman. I've just had a quick look at ATTP (is ATTTP a typo?). It certainly is less antagonistic in tone than is SKepticalScience but perhaps those posting at ATTP are more secure. I take your point about not posting here but probably will post here again if I think it appropriate to do so. To paraphrase Mick Jagger "I probably will post at Skeptical Science, even knowing I'll get my fair share of abuse".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:53 PM on 23 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #4A
Many of these articles have a common element. An economic competitive advantage is obtained by those who can get away with unsustainable and damaging ways of doing things (that are less expensive – and unsustainable, damaging and riskier ways will always be less expensive as long as they can be gotten away with).
Until that counter-productive economic advantage is effectively addressed the powerful global leaders will likely only be 'all talk', with the worst of them saying whatever they believe will be the easiest way to get the most popular support while maximizing the opportunity for the powerful people who help keep them in power to benefit the most from keeping them in power.
The only sustainable future for humanity or an economy is if the uncaring greedy are not able to succeed in any way, ever. The current ‘popular’ socioeconomic system will not lead to a sustainable better future for all. It needs to be significantly changed, but the people who became powerful in the flawed system will certainly not willingly make the required changes.
Hopefully, the continued efforts to most fully inform as many people as possible about this issue will rapidly lead to the majority of voters demanding measures to ensure nobody gets away with an advantage from damaging and unsustainable actions.
-
bruiser at 15:25 PM on 23 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@Composer99 - Sorry, did I not already say that the maps you reference appear to be anomalous when compared to the recorded data from across the country. Go to the BOM Climate and past Weather Data and plot solar exposure for 2013 for any town or AWS. Let me know if you find one that does not meet the criteria that I outlined above.
-
Wigfried at 15:13 PM on 23 January 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
Hope this isn't considered political, but : Thank you for this site. As a "denier", it's nice to get answers to my questions without being called ignorant, stupid, or dishonest. This site is convincing. Thank you.
-
Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
PS apologies for typos. mobile is unforgiving.
-
Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
As long as curry is asking questions about the data and models, and is willing to have her mind changed, there is nothing wrong with her questioning the science, nor is there anything wrong about -being wrong- based on misunderstanings of the data.
From what I've read, her crime is that she is less measured about asking questions and blogs / speaks openly about the points she doesn't fully trust / data she doesn't think holds up. If counterpoints that should convince her do, in fact, end up changing her mind, then she's just engaging in the questioning of a hypothesis. Being shrill and defensive about AGW isn't helpful, questioning should not ever be off limits.
In the comments above, her accuracy has been called into question. To that I say: So? That only interests me if she does not correct when presented with an explanation of her misunderstaning. I've also seen accusations of "misrepresenting evidence" and again, I think that demands the she is willfully doing so. Misunderstaning is not malicious misrepresentation, and again, does not bother me as long as she self corrects. As for the promotion of uncertainty, that is -fully- justified if one is, in fact, uncertain. It would be trully horrendous science to go along with a hypothesis to which one believes one has legitimate counterarguments or counter an alternate hypothesis.
Disonance is what good science is about, as long as it is provided in a testable, refutable format.
I'll buy what you are saying if you can show me a quote or interaction in which Curry is shown that a statement she made was misinformed, provided an explanation of that misinformation, and yet ignores the potential for correction. Only then can you really throw her into the pond of the deniers.
Global warming is an extremely important topic, but it is not a sacred mantra. It's refinement should come from questioning within the community as well as from without. If there are researchers perceived as being on the borders of denialism but who are still engaged in a principled, science driven debate on the issue, they should be WELCOMED welcomed and ENGAGED WITH engaged with, not bullied.
Again, happy to be proven wrong, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that Curry rejects strong evidence so much as occasionally misreads it. And I've seen no evidence that, when corrected with evidence that answer her concerns, she remains obstinant. I think the latter is the definition of a denier, and nothing less fits the bill.
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of "all caps" is prohibited by the Sks Comments Policy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
Composer99 at 13:56 PM on 23 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
barry: Thank you for the clarification.
bruiser, I'm struggling to understand what is going on here.
Using the BOM information, you claim that (a) Australia's solar exposure was at record or above-average levels in 2013. Are you also claiming that, somehow (b) despite setting a "new national average record", Australia's temperatures this year are somehow unexceptional in light of the all-time high temperature record set at a single weather station?
As far as (a) goes, you are contradicted by your own data source, as barry noted above.
Average solar exposure for Australia during the period 1990-2011:
Average solar exposure for Australia in 2013:
These maps are constructed from the data you are telling us to review. The maps do not show a significant departure this year from the 1990-2011 average, which stands contrary to your claim "solar radiation was at record or above average levels for most of 2013".
As far as (b) goes, well, if you are going to suggest that a single weather station record set in 1960 outweighs a continent-wide record, I don't believe there is anything to say other than that such a claim is nonsensical. Perhaps you can clarify?
-
Tom Curtis at 11:39 AM on 23 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
garethman @25, regulars at SkS are probably a bit gun shy of posters who simply rehash "skeptic" arguments "with the intent of greater understanding" because too often deniers have used that as a tactic to simply get pseudoscience into the debate. It becomes a sort of serial gish gallop, made possible in a interactive written media by refusing to take responsibility to defend the ideas introduced. Inevitably, due to time constraints, some of the garbage so introduced will go unrefuted, that being the purpose of the deniers. It is not that the garbage cannot be refuted. It is simply that there is not time enough to do so! Or very occasionally it is because nobody on the SkS team has the relevant expertise.
That does not make SkS a poor place to ask such questions, if genuine. It does make it important to establish the genuiness of the questions by:
1) Reading the basic material at SkS first, and making sure you understand it;
2) When introducing "skeptical material", explicitly and honestly state that you are either questioning the material, and need help; or defending it (either is acceptable);
3) Do not introduce the material as evidence of some other thing (eg. the cause of the increase popularity of antiscience) which gives the appearance of wanting to introduce the material while avoiding explicit discussion of it which would show it to be a myth; and
4) Accept the fact that SkS contributors are busy and have little time (just like everyone else), so faced with yet another dubious claim from a person with a reputation of creating climate myths - they may simply point that out instead of spending the (often) hours needed to track down the relevent information to refute the myth.
In the most recent example, it is possible that Goddard is on to something, but it is far more likely, given his record, that when he merely repeats factual information gleaned from a published, peer reviewed paper and intimates it is evidence of fraud, that the peer reviewers, editor, and authors of the paper who have much greater background information and expertise actually know better than he does.
-
Dave123 at 08:42 AM on 23 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
Wili- I'vec seen the CO2 cools the planet/NASA link after a solar flare hit the earth, excited the upper atmosphere and the CO2 there radiated, in effect cooling things off. It's a fake out argument...a 1/25 of the truth sort of thing.
-
bruiser at 08:21 AM on 23 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@Skywatcher - The data is very similar for any town. The particularly hot days coincide with low humidity. No surprise there; it was a very dry year. You can plot humidity against max, min, temp difference,cloud cover and solar exposure. My point remains, solar radiation was at record or above average levels for most of 2013. Particularly hot days had low humidity. Whilst a new national average record was set, no new absolute maximum temperature record was set. That record is 50.7 degrees C at Oodnadatta airport 2 Jan 1960.
-
Chris G at 08:12 AM on 23 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
A bit of a digression, I'll try to keep it short.
I was in a room of people, all concerned about climate change, and a bit of an argument broke out over whether we should oppose or support nuclear. I was able to silence the room by observing that in the war for a sustainable future, there are many battles to be fought; if we loose the battle on carbon, we loose the war.
It is important to keep the focus on the most pressing danger, and not allow ourselves to become distracted into bickering amongst others on the same side.
Tom Curtis at #6.2 resonates precisely with my own best answer to these types of questions. I don't have to know what balance of alternatives is optimal. I only have to know that a solution exists, and create incentive for the market to move toward it. -
bruiser at 08:08 AM on 23 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@Barry - Hi Barry, 4th try. The BOM solar radiation data can be accessed at:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ Just select solar exposure from the drop-down, enter a town and follow the bouncing ball. When the data comes up you can select "Plot statistics for this year". Have fun.
-
wili at 07:12 AM on 23 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
Val, one I hadn't seen before that actually came up in my class was the claim that CO2 actually had the effect of cooling the planet. The student claimed she had read it in an article by a NASA scientist. I tried to react calmly and cooly, but I was a bit surprised at the asburdity of the claim. On reflection, if it was an actual quote (I asked the student to send me the link, but she never did), it may have been cherry picked from a passage about conditions near the top of the atmopshere where, to the extent that they radiate their absorbed heat into space, CO2 (what little of it ther is) would participate in local cooling (if I understand this correctly).
It just goes to show, there is always another way to pick out some detail of a very complicated science and make it look as if there is some contradiction.
-
garethman at 04:51 AM on 23 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
I think the point you may have missed Poster is that if you see some research that looks dodgy, but you want an expert opinion on the piece, don't bring it here, it's not that sort of site. It's a great site for information, but not to explore why some wierd opinions are incorrect. If you want a kinder approach you may like to try ATTTP which is generally kinder and more tolerant of people who are not experts in the field of Climate science and tend to ask dumb or obvious questions. (Like myself !) Don't worry overly about the antogonistic responses, I'm sure their bark is worse than their bite.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
barry1487 at 12:48 PM on 22 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Composer, I posted links to BOM solar exposure maps @ 14.The authors of the article state,
...we calculated the probability of hot Australian temperatures in model experiments. These incorporated human (changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone) and natural (solar radiation changes and volcanic) factors. We compared these probabilities to those calculated for a parallel set of experiments that include only natural factors. In this way, natural and human climate influences can be separated.
If Bruiser has lit upon observations that call that study (and BOM results) into question, then Australia-wide data would be an improvement on unverified claims about two locations. I hope he/she obliges us, because I don't know where he/she is getting the data from.
Reference please, Bruiser? -
denisaf at 12:47 PM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
More convincing arguments could have been presented to Congress if infrastructure had been blamed for the contribution of greenhouse gases to global warming, so cliamte change. That would have been more realistic so more credible than blaming people, who only made decisions, good as well as bad.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:43 AM on 22 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
Val @3, while some deniers may have used this argument as a false flag argument, there is no doubt that most proponents of it are genuine advocates of nuclear power. Some may in fact be advocates of nuclear power first, and only use concerns about global warming to advocate for what they want to have in any event, but that's OK.
My view is that:
1) I think the argument is incorrect on balance of probabilities; but the argument that it is incorrect is not clear cut and depends on assumptions about future technological developments which may not pan out so I would not want to take nuclear of the table entirely;
2) I don't have to make a decision on the issue. Rather, I need to get a price on carbon and let the market sort out which is the most economical way to meet the markets energy needs with that price on carbon. If I am correct, nuclear will be a small portion of the mix of new energy. If I am incorrect, it will be a large portion the new energy.
3) To allow nuclear to compete under that scheme it must be legalized (where it currently isn't), but it should be legalized only on the strict condition that it is renewable, where "renewable" nuclear is defined as nuclear energy in which all non-commercial waste is sequestered in a form that:
a) has a lower mean radioactivity than its source ore body;
b) is less prone to leaching than its source ore body; and
c) the sequestered waste is more expensive to regather and refine than would be natural ores.
The effect of these three conditions is to turn the nuclear industry into a complex mechanism to reduce the natural hazard from uranium ore bodies*.
4) Finally, I will not tie the battle to mitigate global warming to the battle to legalize nuclear power. Mitigating global warming is to important to waste political capital by tying it to a method that is political poison, and probably unnecessary. Of course, neither will I waste political capital opposing "renewable" nuclear. On the contrary, I will suport it, but not campaign for it; and absolutely not tie the campaign to tackle global warming to it.
(* These three conditions tackle issues of intergenerational justice with regard to nuclear. The clearly to not tackle current risks in terms of nuclear accidents, spills, and nuclear weapon proliferation. Those issues will also need to be addressed but as they are issues that effect the current generation primarilly, they can be tackled by any method deemed fit by the current generation.)
-
Rob9969 at 11:21 AM on 22 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
Kanspaugh, hopefully I can give you a satisfactory answer, since I was a studnet in Prof. Mandia's class. In the class I attended there was one student that would ask questions like "How do we know A is causing B? How do we know it's not a coincidence?" He never would create a direct confrontation with the professor, but I know he did not beleive much of what was taught in class, because before it began I would hear him and several other fellow students make remarks that indicated they thought it was a hoax.
What I recall Prof. Mandia would do in these circumstances is once again explain the concept to the student, follow that up with why we know the data supporting the claim is credible, and finally he would make points similar to the following; "Despite what I have told you, if we assumed for a moment that this single concept was a coincidence or factually incorrect, it is not anywhere near enough to discredit anthropogenic global warming, because you would still have to overcome A, B, C, D, E."
-
Val at 09:54 AM on 22 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
I have a query,I hope this is an ok thread to put it. Recently I've seen quite a few people arguing that we need to adopt nuclear power because renewables aren't capable of meeting our energy needs in time. In one case the person putting the view ultimately turned out to be a right wing climate change denialist. It certainly looks like a denialist tactic for disrupting progress on renewables, but it doesn't seem to be covered in your list of myths, or misinformation as discussed in this post.
It seems to be a somewhat more subtle tactic than most of the myths and forms of misinformation discussed on this blog, because it allows the proponents to present themselves as being actually concerned about climate change. Have you, or are you going to cover this issue on the blog? (Apologies if you already have and I just haven't been able to find it - I'm an occasional visitor to this blog but I don't follow it regularly)
Moderator Response:[PS] Please try Its too hard and maybe "Renewables cant provide baseload" Not a simple subject.
-
Composer99 at 09:52 AM on 22 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
bruiser, barry has posted temperature anomaly maps, not solar radiation maps. Unless I am missing a picture somehere ... ?
-
skywatcher at 08:05 AM on 22 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Bruiser, it looks like you've just successfully identified the months last year in which Sydney was sunny! We had a wet June and November, but for most of austral winter and spring, local winds have been unusually persistent westerlies, bringing dry air off the continent, low humidity, but warm. Do you have the data to support a continent-scale reason for Australia's hot weather? Especially with minimum temp anomalies very high, I don't see any contradictions. Also ocean temps have been high around Australia IIRC.
-
Composer99 at 07:51 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Curry has demonstrably made claims that appear consistent with being a full-on denier of climate science and not just a helpful "skeptic".
I also question the notion that misrepresenting the existing body of evidence counts as either a "critique [that] centers on specific innaccuracies in various models, some data insuffuciency points", or "extremely important and healthy to this situation", or "in fact raising good questions".
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:47 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
DD... "Curry's observations are extremely important and healthy to this situation."...if and when they are accurate.
She is not accurate on the Arctic, as Tamino shows.
She is not accurate on the Antarctic, as Eli Rabett shows.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:44 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
DD... You're talking about the tone of one comment here at SkS.
Let me ask you, have you ever read the extensive comments threads on Curry's blog?
I will point out that Tamino has posted an excellent piece showing how Judith clearly did not take the time to thoroughly look at the Arctic data she presented. There is no possible way that she is correct about Arctic temps being as warm in the 1930's. Not even close. The data she was referring to ends in 1997.
This is not what one expects from a real scientist.
Prev 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 Next
