Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 Next
Comments 42101 to 42150:
-
scaddenp at 07:09 AM on 27 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
So which seems more likely? A magical cycle with no known cause, no supporting evidence: Or something that is in accordance with known physics. If you have a TOA energy imbalance, (thats measured), what do think is happening to that energy?
-
michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie,
In the many reports linked above that you have not read they document that technical improvements and fertilizer have dramaticly increased food production since 1960. In the last two decades, the increase in food production has slowed due to global warming. In many agricultural areas of the globe, the temperature is currently near or above the optimum for food production. Further temperature increases will result in dramatic drops in food production. This includes most of the tropics. You are making a strong argument from ignorance of the data, which you have refused to read in spite of the links you have been shown.
Please provide references to support your claim that further increases in temperature will not affect food production. Your unsupported claims are not worth much. You have been provided copius data in support of the claim that temperature will decrease food production.
-
John Hartz at 06:23 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie, you say "I have not once stated my opinion on what will happen." What I am pointing out is that there's no reason for you to point out a food production-GW/CO2 correlation unless you're making a claim about the future. Unless I'm wrong, and I am willing to be wrong if you can provide a reason why you'd do such a thing and not intend to make a claim about future food production.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Umm, no, Freshie. The mod is deleting your psots because you're ignoring the comments policy. My comments get deleted when I do it; why wouldn't yours get deleted (you special or something?)?
-
John Hartz at 06:15 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie:
DSL has already provided you with six peer reviewed papers in response to your request. Have you taken the time to read them?
Have you taken the time to read any of the Oxfam reports listed in the OP?
Your hand-waving is very tiresome and its continuation will not be tolerated.
-
freshie2005 at 06:01 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
DSL,
I have not once stated my opinion on what will happen. I am simply saying that the only empirical evidence we have on increasing CO2 and temperature are corresponding increases in food production. It's pretty funny you use this line of reasoning since this is the EXACT same way the temperature models have been created. You do realize this, don't you?
I am fully prepared to be proven wrong. Whenever proven wrong, one becomes smarter because of it. Until ANYONE presents some empirical evidence to support this research, it's opinion, not science.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of repetitive sloganeering cloaked in snark. Future posts of this nature will be summarily deleted.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie, I don't get your intense focus on what has happened since 1960. The only claim I can see coming from it is "food production has increased since 1960; therefore, food production will continue to increase." If you establish that food production has EXPLODED since 1960, what's the point?
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Oh, and Freshie, could you cut out the all-caps. I can read without you slapping me in the face with words.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Wait . . . freshie2005, are you claiming that the increase in food production since 1961 is due to increased GMST and increased CO2? Or is this all an exercise in "gotcha-ism"? Is someone trying to say something meaningful? Freshie, I don't see it in your comments. You don't account for improvements in agricultural method, increased planting, improved genetics, more efficient and effective distribution and storage, better crop management, etc. etc. Do you need citations for all those?
As for food production declining:
Lobell et al. 2011: "Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors."
Johanson & Fu 2008: "Observations show that the Hadley cell has widened by about 2°–5° since 1979. This widening and the concomitant poleward displacement of the subtropical dry zones may be accompanied by large-scale drying near 30°N and 30°S. Such drying poses a risk to inhabitants of these regions who are accustomed to established rainfall patterns."
Thornton 2012: "An analysis of the effects of climate change on 22 critical agricultural commodities and three important natural resources in the developing world reveals a number of cross-cutting themes: The world’s agricultural systems face an uphill struggle in feeding a projected nine to ten billion people by 2050."
Ahsan et al. 2011: "However, with increasing population, degraded land quality, and potential global warming, agriculture is seen as one of the major vulnerabilities facing Bangladesh in near future. More specifically, a progressive decline in sunshine duration (25%) over a period of 30 years has become a growing concern for agriculture in terms of reduced photosynthesis and food security."
Roos et al. 2012: "In Scandinavia, a milder and more humid climate implies extended growing seasons and possibilities to introduce new crops, but also opportunities for crop pests and pathogens to thrive in the absence of long cold periods. Increased temperatures, changed precipitation patterns and new cultivation practices may lead to a dramatic change in crop health. Examples of diseases and insect pest problems predicted to increase in incidence and severity due to global warming are discussed."
Giannakopolous et al. 2009: "Regarding agriculture, crops whose growing cycle occurs mostly in autumn and winter show no changes or even an increase in yield. In contrast, summer crops show a remarkable decrease of yield. This different pattern is attributed to a lengthier drought period during summer and to an increased rainfall in winter and autumn."
Funk & Brown 2009: "If yields continue to grow more slowly than per capita harvested area, parts of Africa, Asia and Central and Southern America will experience substantial declines in per capita cereal production. Global per capita cereal production will potentially decline by 14% between 2008 and 2030. Climate change is likely to further affect food production, particularly in regions that have very low yields due to lack of technology. Drought, caused by anthropogenic warming in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, may also reduce 21st century food availability in some countries by disrupting moisture transports and bringing down dry air over crop growing areas. The impacts of these circulation changes over Asia remain uncertain. For Africa, however, Indian Ocean warming appears to have already reduced rainfall during the main growing season along the eastern edge of tropical Africa, from southern Somalia to northern parts of the Republic of South Africa. Through a combination of quantitative modeling of food balances and an examination of climate change, this study presents an analysis of emerging threats to global food security."
Want more? There's plenty out there.
-
freshie2005 at 05:49 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Rob,
If you noticed, I haven't given my opinion to what WILL happen. I'm only trying to determine how researchers can come up with a conclusion that is COMPLETELY DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to empirical data. What are they basing this on? If you base it on the empirical data we have, food production should increase in the manner it has for the last 40 years. I have yet to see anyone on this thread point to ANY empirical data that suggests that worldwide food production will decrease as temperatures and CO2 increase. I have presented what empirical data we have, which shows an EXPLOSION in food production from 1961 through the present.
Is there ANYONE on this thread that can point to empirical evidence that this research is valid?
Moderator Response:[JH] The use of all-caps is expressly prohibitied by the SkS Comments Policy. Future posts containing all caps will be summarily deleted.
-
Rob Painting at 05:45 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Freshie - I don't think anyone here disputes that food production has increased since the 1960's. The facts are very well established. But it smacks of child-like reasoning to expect the road ahead to be like the road already travelled. Numerous studies have demonstrated that heat tolerance thresholds for crops such as maize and corn will eventually be passed as the world continues to warm. Yields will decline dramatically once this occurs.
-
freshie2005 at 05:21 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Deflect much MA?
You are still trying to dance around the question, so let me make it something you can't degrade into semantics and keep it in the scientific realm. And yes, I have a scientific background which means there is very little that I consider absolute!
Let's break it down to something you can't dance around.
1. During 1961 to the present there is a large body of evidence that verifies CO2 increased.
2. During 1961 to the present, there is a large body of evidence that verifies temperatures increased.
3. During 1961 to the present, worldwide food production exploded. This is a fact!
It's really simple MA. How can you possibly support this theory when the empirical data completely refutes it? No dancing, no siting studies that have zero impact on climate change. Yes or no to question 1 through 3. You can't dance through science, no matter how hard you try. If you can't answer yes or no for questions 1 through 3, it's pretty obvious no amount of empirical data will change your mind.
Moderator Response:[JH] Either lose the snark, or lose your posting privileges.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
I am not trying to intentionally antagonize you. I am presenting other sides so that you can hear the stories as the title stated. Also, we all need to work at being more peaceful and seeing what unites us.
-
John Mason at 05:08 AM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
Lou - that is spot-on!
Hank - the irony of caricaturing Mike Mann in an attack on ad-hom arguments is a good illustration of Josh's intellect - all by himself!
-
Lou Grinzo at 04:59 AM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
I like to use the analogy of car crashes. Imagine safety experts, automotive engineers, trauma doctors, etc. discussing exactly what will happen to the passengers of a given model of car traveling at a very high rate of speed when it hits a bridge support. There would no doubt be some minor disagreements -- will the driver die because his head hits the windshield and explodes, or because he's crushed by the collapsing passenger compartment? Will the passengers in the back seats necessarily die, or will some of them "merely" be very seriously injured?
Then along comes a denier-type who says, "See? They can't even agree on what will happen, so let's go driving at 100MPH with the lights off!" Of course, they never mention that not a single one of the experts ever suggested that it would be a good idea to do something like that...
-
MA Rodger at 04:45 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
freshie2005 @9.
I think your question was answered @8 but you need that answer explaining to you.
Do you agree with Rus Ackoff (as linked @8) that the assertion that smoking prevents cholera is entirely facetious? Do remember the data supported that assertion more strongly than that same data demonstrated smoking caused cancer, itself a result the Surgeon General considered worthy of publishing.
Now I could make a WAG about how you will respond, but I will do you the courtesy of awaiting your reply.
-
Tom Curtis at 04:17 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Lei @6 writes:
"I didn't say that people will "just" migrate."
With apologies to the moderator, that is exactly what you wrote, ie:
"People will just migrate to northern areas."
And Hank_ @4, when somebody suggests a problem will be solved because "People will just migrate", then their response is facile. And because it is facile, it is worthwhile pointing out that it is.
-
John Hartz at 04:16 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
@Lei:
Per Sks Commnets Policy, all complaints about moderation will be summarily deleted. You have violated this policy once. Please cease and desist or face the conequences.
-
John Hartz at 04:13 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
@ Lei:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
In parts of the Western US (Willamette Valley of Oregon) they have the most productive farmland in the US. It is due to planting methods, apparently. The farmers are very well-educated and are businessmen using computers.
Some have complained about climate change, but it is obvious to me that they should simply invest in northern farmland until man's ability to cool the air (planting more trees or other methods) catches up and turns the problem around - and even scientists have no complaints.
-
John Hartz at 03:50 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
All: I have deleted a number of Lei's comments on this thread because they were off-topic sloganeering and repetitive.
-
John Hartz at 03:44 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
@fresshie2005:
Perhaps you should start on your quest to learn more about how climate change may impact food production by actually reading the OXfam reports and the numerous referenced documents they are based on. The OP provides direct links to those reports.
-
hank_ at 03:43 AM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
And then there is this picture from the dark side represnting the (only) 5 answers that matter from the IPCC ! ;)
-
freshie2005 at 03:29 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Rob,
Could you please link me to empirical data that supports the WAG that as temp and CO2 increase, food production drops? The only empirical data I've been able to find states just the opposite.
-
Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
Elevator > escalator (see graph in right-hand column)
-
Rob Nicholls at 03:17 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Lei @8. People will no doubt do their best to adapt. Currently, despite the fact that there is enough food to feed the world's human population 1 in 8 people do not get enough food to be healthy and lead an active life (a truly horrific statistic) suggesting that individuals' attempts to adapt to the current situation are not 100% effective.
Personally I believe that the current situation could be improved massively by changing economic and political systems so that they are geared much more towards meeting basic needs, but whatever system is in place climate change seems likely to worsen the risk of hunger for a very large number of people.
Although there is a lot of uncertainty associated with projections, uncertainty cuts both ways and I am truly scared by the potential for increased widespread hunger resulting from climate change. Even by 2050 (with relatively small increases in temperature), Nelson et al 2009 (reference 6 in the Oxfam report) estimate that climate change may cause and increase of around 8 to 10 percent in the number of malnourished children in all developing countries, relative to perfect mitigation. As temperature rises further, the effects on food security could be much much worse, and may be extremely non-linear.
-
Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
Ger@rd, the trend for 1973 to 2008 in Had4 is 0.188C per decade. I'm not saying that a short-term negative/flat trend in GMST isn't occurring. What I'm saying is that you can't use the word "hiatus" unless you define it. I'm then saying that the only way to find a definable "hiatus" is to use a period that's less than a decade in length and probably more like six years. At that point, you only have to look at "the elevator" to see that such short-term deviations are normal.
The term "hiatus" needs to be further defined in light of the fact that GMST is still within the 95% confidence range for the CMIP3 regime ensemble. It's only when we compare the ensemble model mean--that less-than-meaningful line--that an appreciable deviation appears, and only within the last six years.
Ocean heat content: you say "probably cyclical." You cite no research to support that claim, nor do you account for research that supports a different view (I link the scholar search instead of specific works because I want to point out that looking at deep ocean warming is not a new thing, not scientists scrambling to come up with excuses). The word "probably" is one of the most oft-used pieces of evidence to support action. Unfortunately, that evidence only has value for the mind that uses it. I want something more.
I agree that climate science is highly politicized. That's true for any science where the stakes are high. Climate science is also perhaps the most scrutinized areas of science. It's much more difficult to get away with imprecise, off-the-cuff remarks. It's very difficult to get away with bad science--partially because of the scrutiny, and partially because climate is a highly-integrated and highly-progressive area of study. The garbage is taken out quickly, either by the usual scientific process or by nature itself.
-
Albatross at 03:08 AM on 27 September 2013Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz
Nicely done John and JG!
"Fossil Fuel Defence Force". Love it!
The only reason that some of those misinformation bombs detonate (even though they are off target) is because most of the media are complicit.
-
freshie2005 at 02:56 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
MA, there is analysis and there is data. You haven't answered the question. Food production has exploded since 1961. That's the raw data we have to analyze. Rates of cancer vs. smokers and non-smokers was the raw data used in the analysis you site. Bottom line, smoking raises your chances of getting cancer and since 1961, food production has exploded. When prediction do not match impirical data, scientists are supposed to find out why the prediction failed. In this case, the researchers present a WAG that runs 100% counter to the available raw data.
-
Ger@rd at 02:39 AM on 27 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
@DSL: Especially in the Hadcrut4 data there is a present hiatus starting at around 2004 till now arguably you could extend that to 1998. Even Dana in his debunk above needs deep sea warming to explain the present hiatus. In the temperature data there are similar (complete) events to be seen from 1945 to 1975 and 1878 to 1913 earlier then that the cycle becomes messy which is to be expected as there is more then one cycle at work. I said that it looks like a cover up. Actually I would not be surprised that there really is deep sea warming going on (but probably cyclical and part of a natural variation so not suited to debunk the hiatus). I don't believe in conspiracies but do think that in climate science too many scientists are morally and politically connected to a cause which is in itself a danger to objective observation.
-
MA Rodger at 02:35 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
freshie2005 @9.
Absolutely so. But there is data and there is data. Take for instance the analysis carried out by Rus Ackoff who demonstrated that, not only did smoking cause cancer, it was even better at preventing cholera. He agreed with the medical folk that his analysis was facetious, but that was the point of it!!
-
freshie2005 at 02:15 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
How do the researchers reconcile the fact that food production has exploded since 1961. There was significant warming AND significant CO2 increases in that time period.
http://historylink101.com/lessons/farm-city/food_production.htm
Or the fact that worldwide cereal production in 2013 is predicted to reach a historic high?
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45388#.UkRXeM7n-cw
The data clearly shows food production increasing as temps and CO2 increases. How do the researchers make their leap when the data shows the opposite?
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
What about future inventions to desalinate salt water and to live in floating communities? What about other inventions that will help? Eating powdered food - LOL - comes to mind. I didn't say that people will "just" migrate. It would be one of many adaptations just like my ancestors made.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:04 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
To elaborate on Hank's post, the ethanol made from corn is the real problem. Biofuels are derived mainly from 2 crops: corn and sugar cane.
The sugar cane based biofuels are mostly produced in Brazil, where the use of bagasse for powering the processing plants allows said plants to be energetically self sufficient and even sell surplus to the utilities. Available studies on the enery balance indicate it is quite good (8 to 10 range). The reduction in GHG, even after taking into account land use changes is around 60%, per the US EPA. Sugar cane production uses about 2% of the available arable land in Brazil.
All this can be found in seconds on Wikipedia, plenty of references there.
In the US, ehtanol is produced from corn. The energy balance and GHG reduction are nowhere near as good as that of sugar cane and big producers did switch from white to yellow corn to jump on the higher price bandwagon. As a result, some types of food became less affordable. Corn based ethanol does not appear to be anywhere near as satisfactory. It had the side effect of reducing governement subsidies, however. Strangely enough, the anti-tax, anti-government spending crowd never mentions that as benefit.
-
hank_ at 01:17 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
@ Tom #5
There is no indication at all that people will be migrating 'en masse' to anywhere. These things always go on a scale of decades or longer with slow movements of people. And anyway, was it really necesary to label another person's post as 'facile'?
IMO, we are missing some of the current problems that are causing food shortages and higher prices. Is it not time to end the disaster of the Biofuels program? This is not helping anyone but the producers that are lining their pockets.
-
michael sweet at 01:11 AM on 27 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei,
The posters at SkS do not represent any "side". Some are conservatives and some are liberals but all care about the future of our children and the scientific process that predicts problems for those children. You demonstrate your personel bias and lack of knowledge when you comment on "sides".
Since you advocate having people move when they are displaced by AGW, how many are you willing to take into your state from Bangladesh? They have about 100 million people who will need a new place to live in this century. Oh what is that- you don't want to take them! That means your solution of having people move will not work. Or is your solution having someone else take the refugees that you create with your pollution. Does it really seem fair that someone else will have to fix all the problems that you are making? Do you think those people who have to clean up your mess will be happy with you about that? What might they do after they are homeless?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:00 AM on 27 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei... Please note: You don't get snipped for your opinion. You get snipped for not following the comments policy.
-
michael sweet at 00:37 AM on 27 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Zen,
Look at the Tamino link in 2.
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Our beachfront is far above sea level due to fear of tsunamis.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:34 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Lei apparently sees no contradiction in her facile suggestion that "People will just migrate to northern areas" and her opposition to "illegal immigration". Either people will be allowed to migrate en masse, or else the rate of immigration will be insufficient to ameliorate the problems caused by global warming. There is no evidence that any population on Earth is willing to accept immigration en masse today, so it is hardly a prospective solution for tomorrow. Of course, greatly harmed by global warming due to loss of water or food may well be tempted to emigrate en masse - hence the risk of increased conflict.
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
I am not offended by anything that scientists say to me. I have a thick skin from working with the poor who will give you a blistering scolding right after you pick up the phone.
One of my goals is peace. I don't think talking amongst yourselves and not allowing other opinions (or snipping them) looks right.
I think illegal immigration is wrong and is harmful to the US, but the party that upholds it is on your side. How do you justify millions of resource users going to the US where the most resources are used?
I took a class on Population and know it is the growth of the human species that is going to harm the planet. In fact, if the growth of our species was smaller, we would have fewer problems with climate change. One problem is the outgrowth of another.
-
How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Out of interest, would it be possible for one of you clever people on this site to cherry pick the La Nina low years either side of the 97 high, and stick it in a chart to show what the trend would look like. Thanks.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
On both sides of my family, people migrated huge distances - from Europe to the Western US (lack of farm land in Ireland) and from Asia to Hawaii. These migrations took place before 1900. One migration took place in 1820.
Of course, people can adapt.
-
Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
Ger@rd: "I think it is perfectly ok to look at the temperature data and try to differentiate the different signals in it even without causation."
Sure, it's ok. It's not going to end up meaning much, but you're free to spend your time as you see fit.
Ger@rd: "That gives problems with the present hiatus in warming. The warming of the deeper ocean layers looks like a cover up to me."
Does it look that way to you? The linear trend for GMST (GISS) from 1972 to 2008 is 0.183C per decade. That's a hair under the expected trend (setting aside the diminishing transient response expected as we go back in time). What period is your alleged "hiatus" in GMST?
Do you actually believe that thousands of scientists are engaged in a "cover up"?
-
pikaia at 20:39 PM on 26 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Another factor that will hit food production is rising sea levels.Much of our food is grown on land that is less than 5 feet above sea level, paricularly the major river deltas. Bangladesh is little more than one big delta. These are home to hundreds of millions of people, and when they flood we will not only lose a lot of agricultural land, the people will be forced to migrate to higher ground, if they can find anywhere suitable!
-
Ger@rd at 19:19 PM on 26 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
I think it is perfectly ok to look at the temperature data and try to differentiate the different signals in it even without causation. Akasofu ends up with a linear and a cyclic trend and if we look at the beginning of this century and the last and a bit further it fits well. His recovery theory is a vague though and he do is tuning this back in his most recent publication. Also others have eplained the causes of the cyclic signal better and longer though chaotic at specific times (De Jager, Duhau). The finding in itself is worthwile however. On the other side of the scientific spectrum there is another approach. First there is a physical cause (CO2/warming) and then models are made to fit the data. That gives problems with the present hiatus in warming. The warming of the deeper ocean layers looks like a cover up to me. It would have been credible if it was found before the hiatus but it isn’t and if it do is real it should have been there too in 1945-1975 (HadCrut4). The agung volcano eruption in 1963 is a bit late for explaining that stop in temperature rise. If the hiatus in warming was there in that era it will probably be there now too and for another 15 years to come. It will be better to give more credits to natural variability then to hold on arrrogantly to the “we know it all and can compute it” approach.
-
Leto at 15:18 PM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Esop,
I agree. It seems to me that, for any noisy trend, there will always be a denialist argument available to deny the trend. When extreme values occur, there will usually be short-term factors that have led to the extreme, and these can be emphasized. When the inevitable regression to the mean occurs, this can be portrayed as a recovery. So, if there is a record melt season, blame it on storms or weather, after the record season, point out the recovery, etc. If the surface temp heats up during an el nino, blame that, but then forget about the el nino when using the same data point as the cherry-picked start of a trend. It's tiresome and obvious to most of the readers here, but seems to work every time for those readers predisposed to accept a contrarian viewpoint.
-
John Mason at 14:59 PM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
@DSL,
Well it doesn't bloody help when scientists themselves (hello Kosaka & Xie) use "global warming" interchangeably with "global mean surface temperature."
If that's what they've done then no, that doesn't help at all. Surface air temperature, while likely to be the component of the climate system that we are most aware of (for the time being, then hello, sea levels!) is still but one component of an interactive system that exchanges energy with other components over time, and energy continues to accumulate within the whole....
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:31 PM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
So many thoughts come to mind.
An important aspect to keep in mind is "the motivation for people to believe nonsense".
This issue is not really about the legitimacy of the climate science. Attempts to discredit the science are not expected to be seriously evaluated by their “target audience”. They are expected to be accepted without question.
The real issue is the profit, pleasure, comfort and convenience that will be more difficult for the most fiortunate to continue to obtain if burning non-renewable resources becomes "officially unacceptable".
In some cases it isn't even the fact that sustainable living will require more personal awareness and effort. Some people have gambled by betting (investing or hoping to get more money from employment), on specific non-renewable resources being profitably extracted and burned. If they are "globally prohibited" from employing a few people in pursuit of that "interest" their bet becomes worthless. The result of that realization would be a "major loss of fantasy wealth that many believe is real".
There is major motivation for many very wealthy people to employ as many smart people as they can find who are willing to do the most disgusting thing a smart person can do - deliberately misinform others rather than most fully inform them to attempt to delay the "development of a sustainable better future for all". They can also “buy media coverage sympathetic to their interest”.
It is easy for them to gather popular support because so many people in the wasteful, harmful, industrial, mass-marketed mass-consumption developed economy are desperate to get more for themselves. Most of them have decent lives but are convinced they will "live in caves" if the burning of non-renewable resources was not allowed. Of course, since burning non-renewable resources for energy will eventually be impractical they are basically declaring hey do not care about the future. That is when they start claiming things like the people of the future will have magic. They are immersed in a grand delusion.
Challenging them if they think it is decent that future humans will not be able to continue living that way the current generation of fortunate people do may wake some of them up. However, the ones that are too deep in the delusion will never change their mind. They will have to be forced to behave decently, and that is claimed to be “taboo” in the “free-world”.
The actions required to change the developed economy to a sustainable economy that could sustain its own growth, as well as all other life on this planet, would be to the short-term deserved disadvantage of the ones among us who only want a better present for themselves. They will use all their influence to get as much for themselves as they can. There are some who are so jaded and callous that they simply will never care about the future. Pointing out the obvious flaws in their claims is important but should be matched with a challenge for them to explain why they don’t care about the future.
The scientists must continue to gather more information to best understand what is going on on this one and only planet we know to have life on it. And that understanding needs to continue to be delivered to the global leaders and the rest of the global population. Increased understanding and awareness is the only chance for all life to have a better future.
Prev 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 Next
