Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 Next
Comments 39351 to 39400:
-
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.
-
DSL at 05:08 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Perhaps, DD, but then let's also recognize without hem-hawing just what sort of project Judith Curry is engaged in. Curry is interested in the promotion of uncertainty. In the minds of the general public, uncertainty typically reads as doubt, and Curry knows that. What Curry publishes and what Curry says often result in dissonance.
-
Sam martin8679 at 04:33 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
@ wili 8- so are we suggesting that if only the ipcc publication cut off had extended to jan 1 14 then ar5 would have published a likely range of 3- 4.5 degrees c warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Must be an important paper if it so clearly outweighs the 20000 or however many came before it.
-
Sam martin8679 at 04:26 AM on 22 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #3
I note the word "once" in th wunderground article:
Though warming didn't stop completely – global temperatures have risen by an average of about 0.05°C per decade since then, a far cry from the 0.15°C to 0.3°C per decade once projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –
It is written as though 2013 was long ago and predictions have changed since then which they have not. Ipcc predictions have remained a remarkbly constant over a quarter of a century. It is still a far cry.
-
Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
The kind of vicious personal attacks being made here on Curry are not helpful to anyone who wants climate skeptics to be brought into the fold. Curry is not a climate change denier by any means. Her critique centers on specific innaccuracies in various models, some data insuffuciency points, and an attempt to make people aware that there are various physical climate effects impacting -real- temperatures that we do not fully understand (including aquatic heat storage, as mentioned).
Attacking her as an "idiot" and questioning why she is "even invited" to these discussions is tasteless garbage. More importantly, it is not helpful in spreading acceptance and understanding of climate science. She's not some shill for the energy industry, nor is she a denier. Critique her arguments themselves, and show a bit more adherence to the standards of sctientific debate, rather than making ad hominems. Otherwise these kinds of comments just lend credence to the very common narrative among deniers that researchers who disagree with AGW are subject to witch hunts, bullying and suppression. When you start to make deniers sound rational by your own actions, you might be the problem.
Curry's observations are extremely important and healthy to this situation. They are in fact raising good questions and providing opportunities for counter points. If she were shilling and not a respectable climate scientist in her own regards, I'd understand the venom here, but she's just a researcher with some fairly mild objections.Here she is giving an interview a few weeks ago on a podcast. This is not the voice of a cliamte denier, just one who is pointing out reservations she has with many current assumptions. Let's keep the debate with her points, yes? And not descend into name calling.
Link: www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html
-
rockytom at 03:59 AM on 22 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Dana1981.
Thanks for all you do for climate science and for excellent posts here and the Guardian. One minor correction in the abopve post: the IPCC AR5, The Physical Science Basis, was released on September 30, 2013, not 2014. Thr remainder of the AR5 will indeed be released in 2014. The 2013 AR5 is a draft but despite instructions to "not quote, cite, or distribute" it seems that many are ignoring this because the report is all we have of AR5 at present.
-
kanspaugh at 03:39 AM on 22 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
I wonder how often Dr. Mandia encounters climate change deniers among his students and how they respond to his pedagogical approach? A few years back I taught a course on the discourses of anti-science and in a class of twenty had three incorrigible deniers.
-
gws at 01:16 AM on 22 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
Stephen @31,
You are of course correct that the viewpoint of electricty production maybe a focus too narrow; the Howarth vs. Cathles discussion in Climatic Change linked in our previous post may give a broader perspective. For instance, for natural gas use in homes (e.g. water heaters) one has to consider extra leakage from the distribution system and compare to the alternative method (here, e.g. heating with electricity and how that is produced), while considering the efficiencies of both processes. In some the natural gas use may be more, in some less efficient than in the power plant comparison. And thus in some regions, the alternative energy source may be even worse while in others better suited to minimize GHG emissions. No one-size-fits-all.
I often invoke the example of Germany ~20 years ago: After the iron curtain fell, the country converted much of its home central heating units nationwide away from oil/electricity to much higher efficiency natgas burners, therefore saving large amounts of GHG emissions. At the same time, this reduced Russian methane emissions because they fixed production and pipeline leaks in response to the economic incentives from the west, a win-win situation. Meanwhile, the Germans have realized that this conversion only goes so far, and that climate change cannot be addressed sufficiently with natural gas ...
... which reminds me of this famous quote:
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else."
-
MA Rodger at 23:33 PM on 21 January 20142013 was Australia's Hottest Year, Warm for Much of the World
Tom Dayton @46.
After due consideration, I think the case that MoreCarbonOK should be debunked is stronger than you put. Would SkS hesitate to debunk say a Monckton or a Lindzen because Monckton or Lindzen as the author would not be able to understand why their thesis is nonsense?
So an appraisal of the offending thesis is presented here on a more appropriate comment thread.
-
Tom Dayton at 23:32 PM on 21 January 2014Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Thank you, MA Rodger, for that dissection of MoreCarbonOK's claim!
-
MA Rodger at 23:24 PM on 21 January 2014Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
This is an appraisal of a thesis that was presented off-topic on a different SkS thread by commenter MoreCarbonOK (a different thesis to the one linked @84 above). The thesis is set out in two parts at MoreCarbonOK's blog here and here. This thesis is a bit of a Kelloggs, containing a lot of serial errors that are perhaps best explained backwards.
(1) The thesis concludes that average global daily maximum temperatures vary cyclically, described by a sine wave (centres on y=0) with a wave-length of 88 years (a time interval of great significance apparently). This finding is incorrect because if such a sine wave were fitted to the data use, it would have a wave-length of 180 years +/- 50 years.
(2) Despite arguments to the contrary, the sine wave is derived solely on the basis of 4 data points that present little more than a straight line. Such a sine wave is illusory.
(3) The data plot is not as described "showing speed of warming in degrees C or K/annum versus time." This is accumulative data. Deriving "speed of warming" data from an accumulative sine wave of constant amplitude would result in a sine wave with amplitude increasing exponentially with increasing years-before-present (and presumably also with increasing years-after-present).
(4) The accumulative data is plotted at the start of the period it represents rather than at the mid-point. As these periods are all "...to date", the correct plot would be half the time-interval before-present. Thus the conclusion that the "drop in speed of warming started ca. 40 years ago" presents a value twice as large as it should be (although it is wrong for other reasons).
(5) The accumulative data is calculated as an average but the spread of the raw data within this average has been ignored. The high variance of the data dwarfs the calculated downward trend which is thus statistically insignificance. No trend whatever can be argued from the data. (Happily the averages were calculated without error.) The averages with their 95% confidence intervals are shown below.
0 to 38 years bp. - 0.035 ave, -0.009 to 0.080
0 to 32 years bp. - 0.027 ave, -0.020 to 0.075
0 to 22 years bp. - 0.015 ave, -0.046 to 0.075
0 to 12 years bp. - -0.013 ave, -0.155 to 0.128
(6) The data calculated is accumulative data. Deriving actual data presents a less-straight trend-line for the average 'maxima' and doubles the downward trend but the variance triples so there remains no trend of statistical significance.
(7) The use of linear regression to analyse lumpy climate data (in this case to calculate rate of change of 'maxima' at each of the 46 selected stations over 4 time periods of different length) is well known to often result in dramatic averages that are hwoever statisitcally insignificant due to the presence of very large variances. The data used (in 1-6 above) will be further subject to very large inaccuracies due to the use of regression yet no account what ever has been made for this.
(8) The thesis fails to consider what work already exists on the subject of 'maxima' or DTR. A quick look at say the global DTR work of the BEST project or the regional DTR work of Wang & Dickinson (2013) with a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation should have saved a lot of wasted effort trying to reinvent the wheel and doing it so badly.
-
michael sweet at 22:19 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster,
You have been posting here for long enough to obtain a reputation. You bring up some denier meme from some discredited site and suggest it is shows scientists are doing something nefarious. Then you get angry when people come down on your posts saying you do not really agree with the post you just want it refuted. It is simple to go to one of the denier sites and check their links to find this junk you post. It takes time to refute the argument.
You have not acknowledged scaddenp's link to the actual data you asked about and you appear to have ignored it. Why ask about stuff you are not interested in pursuing? You ignored Tom's question about your motivation. You have not read the background here, at Real Climate and elsewhere that you have been referred to. Since you do not know the background you keep coming up with more junk. You anonymously claim expertise in science. Why don't you use that expertise to read the background?
People who have a background in science who post here usually come around to the science after two weeks of reading here. Your recent posts primarily complain that you do not like the tone of the replies to your posts. I suggest, again, that you read some of the background so that you can engage in an informed discussion here. It is not the job of SkS to screen all the web sites you choose to read. You will find people are much more friendly when you have done your homework. When you take a confrontational position (for example suggesting that data has been fudged by international data collection agencies), do not be surprised when people are confrontational in return.
-
barry1487 at 20:44 PM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
Good evening, Bruiser. Please provide a link for the solar data as requested. I'd like to follow it up.
[mods, thank you. I see what I did wrong]
[Tom, yes hosting at photobucket was what I should have done in the absence of archived images (I looked). NT is probably showing because the source code for each state is what is highlighted when the cursor hovers over the continent. Discovered that just now]
-
Dan001 at 20:15 PM on 21 January 2014Three perfect grade debunkings of climate misinformation
The link to Mike Santalucia's paper takes you to the wrong article.
Response:[JC] Thanks for the heads up, have fixed the link.
-
Poster9662 at 19:59 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Tom Curtis Skeptical Science is your stamping ground not mine. If what I posted initially, when knowing nothing of Steve Goddard's reputation, was seen merely as an irrelevance then I apologise for that. You recognise the "research" Goddard reported as "myth" I didn't. Perhaps i should have done and again I apologise. I do recognise however that the pendulum of public opinion is not stationary and may ulimately move to a stopping point that neither you nor I might like. Perhaps a little less confrontation and a little more conciliation might be an approach worth taking to avert that.
-
bruiser at 19:18 PM on 21 January 2014Australia’s hottest year was no freak event: humans caused it
@Barry - Hi Barry, Your map of NSW solar radiation in 2013 would appear to be within the "normal" range however the map itself is something of an anomaly if compared to almost any weather station across Australia. Take the capitals, Alice Springs and fill in the blank spaces at your leisure. They mostly show 6 months of record exposure. 2-4 months above average and 2-4 slightly below average. On balance they are well above average on an annual basis.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:34 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Poster @21, I do not have a PhD, but am very well versed in the reasons for not misquoting. Certainly sufficiently well versed to know that, in order to misquote you I must first quote you. Your pointing to a sentence in which I present my assessment of what you have done and pretending it is a misquotation constitutes a rather grotesque misrepresentation.
Further, that you have presented it to us as interesting is shown by the fact that you presented it to us. It is logically possible, of course that a person would discuss and provide a link to something that they consider irrelevant; and that they expect their readers to consider irrelevant. It is, however, not rational. So, either you had a reason to be interested in Goddard's article, and a reason to think we also ought to be interested in it - or you were being flamboyantly off topic in your posting, presenting material that had no relevance either to the OP nor even to you own post.
The interesting question is why do you find Goddard's post interesting enough to bring it up in discussion here?
You said:
"It is this type of report that creates unease in many as it suggests that results from "official bodies" might be not be entirely what they appear to be. This, I think, does a disservice to all who are involved in studying the climate."
But what is the basis of that unease?
(1) Is the interesting fact that the report has no substantive basis for its accusations of fraud, and yet is believed uncritically anyway? Certainly, most of the "unease" with climate science is focussed by factually deficient, poorly analyzed and often contradictory myths - but that his hardly news to us on this site. So it is very puzzling as to why you would advise us of what we so patently already know - particularly in so obscure a manner.
(2) Alternatively, are you purporting that the report is interesting because you think Goddard establishes at least a prima facie case? That would seem the most reasonable basis for your post - especially given that you appear to think we should in fact refute his "case". But his "case" consists of nothing more than periodically drawing attention to data gleaned from Menne et al, 2009 as if it were a new discovery, and inferring fraud with no further analysis. That is, he has no case, and that should be evident to you.
(3) Finally, do you simply not care whether Goddard has a case or not. Do you think the mere existence of slanders means the consequences of those slanders on public opinion are the fault of the person slandered? Should scientists make no adjustments to data (no matter how scientifically justified) because they can be misrepresented as being fraudulent to the detriment of popular sentiment?
These three, I think, almost exhaust the possibilities. Either you recognize Goddard's article as a myth, and are bringing to the attention of SkS the stunning fact that climate myths influence public opinion; or you think there is something in Goddard's claim, and are bringing it to our attention for that reason; or you don't care, and think the scientists should avoid actions leading to such potential slanders (or how else is the fact that such slanders effect public opinion relevant).
There is one other way to escape this tetralemma. You may be simply introducing the myth so that it can influence potential readers, but doing so at arms length so that you are not committed to defending it. That is, you may be seeking to gain rhetorical advantage to further the "unease" if we don't refute Goddard, but without committing yourself to the lose of credibility that would come from trying to defend him.
Please feel free to clarrify which of the four applies. But please don't insult us by pretending you were confused by Goddard's report and hoping we had a refutation to hand. Your discussion of the influence on public opinion ("...this type of report that creates unease in many...") shows that personal understanding of the flaws in Goddard's argument was not your objective.
-
wili at 16:58 PM on 21 January 2014Climate scientist Dessler to US Senate: 'Climate change is a clear and present danger'
Sam, it is not unchanged. Read the last line of the above article more carefully and click on the relevant passage to go to the page that discusses the recent Sherwood et alia paper that shows that all models that show sensitivities below 3 degrees C per CO2 doubling can now be pretty well dismissed, unless someone can find a major flaw in that studies methodologies...
This is not good news.
-
Poster9662 at 15:37 PM on 21 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #3
Tom Curtis I assume you have a PhD and therefore are well versed in the reasons for not misquoting. Given that assumption I am surprised you state with relation to my first post "So why are you presenting his opinion as interesting?" Nowhere did I use the word interesting nor did I imply that it was. Or are you saying that because I presented it I found it interesting? If so that's an incorrect assumption. I think that you and many others on this blog "don't get it". The mood in the populace has changed and is changing. with increasing numbers expressing doubts on the AGW proposition. Very recent examples are at tinyurl.com/mqspjos tinyurl.com/l866f5b and increases in doubters is reported in Australia with the ABS showing a fall from 73% to 57% in those concerned about climate change (tinyurl.com/nlvtoa2) Similar findings also have been reported in the UK. Bearing this in mind it seems odd to antagonise those who come to Skeptical Science with a desire to learn rather than try to convince them that your view point is correct by a using a more amiable approach. As for your question "Or do you claim that the trapping of the Akademik Shokalskiy in ice is likely to merit a paragraph in the next IPCC report?" I'd be a conceited fool to claim any such thing. If you'd asked do I think it might have merited a paragraph I would have answered "no" with the caveat that neither would I have thought that the melting of the Himalaya glaciers would have been in an IPCC report either. So who knows?
I am aware of the requirements for comments and hope this reply does not contravene those requirements
Prev 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 Next
