Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 Next
Comments 44601 to 44650:
-
DSL at 05:37 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones, I think misunderstand me. I'm saying that his claim that his claim is not exaggerated. It is quite relevant. However, he left it at that. He put a simple piece of evidence out there without providing any context for understanding, other than the general bent of his other comments. You erased his claim as exaggerated. Why? You provided no reasons for doing so, probably because you were thinking of his statements in terms of their rhetorical value. When read in the scientific context, Funder et al. 2013 is quite important, because it gives us further secondary evidence that we're warming the climate system with extreme rapidity. What Marcott et al. 2013 found makes sense alongside Funder et al., and the news ain't pretty.
Others have commented on your clinging to "individually correct" statements. As the main post points out, there are several of Patterson's claims that are so bizarre I have to question the man's training: "the climate has not changed - the temperature has not changed in the last seventeen years."
Eh? The climate has changed quite significantly. A poleward shift of the Hadley circulation by 5 degrees in two decades is not climate change? An 80% reduction in Arctic sea ice volume at summer minimum (-33% at winter max) in just 35 years is not climate change?
And if there's anything that gets my goat more than representing the system with the surface/lower troposphere, I don't know what it is. Phil Jones was careless with this point, and he hasn't heard the end of it. Now you're giving Patterson a free pass on it. No. Patterson deserves to be ripped for that claim. The system is warming as expected. The surface/lower troposphere (all of how much of the thermal capacity of the system?) has gone through a longish positive excursion (97-07 roughly) followed by a multi-year negative excursion. Would you say that .172C per decade over 40 years is significant? That's the trend up to present, including this alleged "hiatus."
NODC OHC during the alleged "hiatus". Positive trend? Yah. Significant? Yah. Last value? Ouch. It's all good. It'll drop down to 0 next year. Snort. -
william5331 at 05:34 AM on 13 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
Carbon capture is our only chance to reverse climate change but not by some ridiculous technological fix that will ruin our economy and necessetate the burning of more fossil fuel which should be saved for industrial feed stock. Carbon capture will work by restoring and protecting natural carbon sinks. These include the coral reefs which could grow upwards as the sea rises. Unfortunately we are warming the water and acidifying it while at the same time we over fish this fragile environment. Coral skeletons are 60.5% carbon dioxide. We could restore the grasslands a la Alan Savory on TED talks. They store masses of carbon. We could restore our forests, log them selectively and cleverly and turn the wood into long sequestered well built houses and fine furniture. The waste wood should be used to produce urea for our fields, charcoal to increase the fertility of tropical soils, liquid fuel to replace the use of mineral oil and so forth. And we could restore the beaver to all it's native habitats both in North America and Eurasia. Beaver dams not only repair the ecology of an area, clear and even out water flow, increase the amount of water available for power generation and irrigation but they also sequester masses of carbon. Sequestration of carbon is our only chance. Of course it is ridiculous to keep pumping out masses of Carbon into the atmosphere.
-
bjchip at 05:15 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
If Delingpole were fined a wooden nickle for every misleading statement he utters, there would not be a tree standing in England. That he has a tool like Paterson to play with is a shame but what they are both afraid of is that the order will not be "All Engines Back Full" but "Left Full Rudder, Port Engine Back 2/3, Starboard Engine Ahead 2/3" and hearing the helmsman respond "Aye Aye Sir"
-
John Mason at 04:56 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones - Paterson was either being deliberately wrong or he was terminally confused. One of the two. Do either positions give him any credibility with his current brief? You tell me!
-
MA Rodger at 03:20 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones @20.
I think you are rapidly slipping into denial. The quote from Paterson was "James is actually correct - the climate has not changed - the temperature has not changed in the last seventeen years and what I think we've got to be careful of is..."
Your assertion @8 was (as I correctly pointed out previously) "the climate has not changed, the temp has not changed in the last seventeen years. This is also true. There hasn't been any significant warming for quite some time." The first two clauses of this extract can be seen to be the Paterson quote even though they were not marked as such by you, but the third clause that I have enboldened is all you.
Also you are wrong @20 concerning your words @8 where you do not actually mention "17 years." Perhaps your words "quite some time" may be your way of saying the same thing. As you now present the actual time period, I would point out that you are wrong in this as well. A 0.224ºC rise globally in 17 years is actually very significant rise.
I would be churlish not to suggest that your floundering here may be because of a missing word from your statement, but if you did insert the adjective "statistically" into your statement (and please do take on board that words are there for a reason), you would still be wrong.
Your comment presented @20 apparently at me seems to be excusing Paterson by suggesting that only scientists are qualified to talk in depth on the subject of climate change. I would disagree. It is a matter of knowing what you're talking about, not whether you are a scientist or a politician or whatever.
-
Lanfear at 03:10 AM on 13 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
"that last comment was made tongue at least halfway in the cheek."
Yes, and from a strictly scientific perspective we could do the actual study also.
However I do have a strong sense that this study would only confirm what the current science says, ie. that the AGW is real, so what it would cause among the pseudoskeptics is another wave of Lewandowsky-grade complains and conspiracy-theories.
That's why I would like to see that someone from the pseudoskeptic side would pick this up, since, as I noted, there are a couple of shortcuts that will help you narrow down the search. Not to mention that there is (or at least they like to claim so) a lot of 'skeptics' who can help sifting through the papers.
Funny thing that you came up with a number close to 900, wasn't this the number of 'peer reviewed' papers that poptech listed :)
-
David Kirtley at 02:50 AM on 13 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #23
Thanks for noticing my essay! I couldn't have done it without SkS!
Moderator Response:[JH] On behalf of the entire SkS team, "You're welcome."
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:43 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones wrote "I was merely commenting on the fact that "a set of individually correct statements" could generate the villification that the early comments showed."
In that case you did not understand the reason for the "villification" (which is hyperbole on your part), which is that the secretary of state was using a "set of individually correct statements" to draw a conclusion that wasn't justifiable by that "set of individually correct statements". The secretary of state for the environment ought to be able either to give a sound justification for his position, or to recognise that the "set of individually correct statements" did not support his position. Even if he is not a scientist himself, he ought to have a basic understanding of the mainstream scientific position, perhaps by reading the IPCC's "summary for policy makers", which is designed for that very purpose.
-
HJones at 02:34 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
Dikran Marsupial @17,
I was merely commenting on the fact that "a set of individually correct statements" could generate the villification that the early comments showed.
I do not know the SoS, not being from the UK, and it well may be that he is the idiot that everyone is making him out to be. I just didn't think that his quoted statements warranted that.
MA Rodger @16
It wasn't my comment at 14, it was at 8, and it was a quote. My statement was that there wasn't any significant warming in 17 years.
While the speaker is SoS in charge of the environment and should know the implications of the correct phrasing and terminology, he is a politician and not a scientist.
OPatrick,
I have no desire to dominate this or any thread. I only offered a comment, and responded to questions and comments.
Moderator Response:[JH] The introduction to the SkS Comments Policy reads:
The purpose of the discussion threads is to allow notification and correction of errors in the article, and to permit clarification of related points. Though we believe the only genuine debate on the science of global warming is that which occurs in the scientific literature, we welcome genuine discussion as both an aid to understanding and a means of correcting our inadvertent errors. To facilitate genuine discussion, we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering. (My bold)
Please read the entire policy and adhere to it. Thank you.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:24 AM on 13 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
KKTung@157 No, the confidence interval is for the gradient of the blue line, so the offset has no bearing on this whatsoever. I could add an offset to make the plots look more similar, but that would not change the conclusion that the MLR method significantly underestimates the effect of signal A on signal Y.
UPDATE: If the mean is not subtracted from Y, you get this
which still shows (even more clearly) that the deduced effect of A on Y (in blue) underestimates the actual effect of A on Y (red). There is a small difference in the confidence interval due to a different sample of noise, but it still doesn't contain the correct value (0.00304).
-
KK Tung at 02:16 AM on 13 June 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
In reply to Dikran Marsupial's post 156: Before I do, do you agree with me that there was an error in your last figure showing that your deduced trend is outside the confidence level of the true value? I think it was a plotting problem, specifically a problem of offset, as I tried to point out to you. I wasn't sure of course because I didn't have the details.
-
OPatrick at 01:58 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones, whilst I'm reluctant to extend your domination of this thread I do have to wonder if you think that a series of, at a stretch, defensible statements is an acceptable way to communicate on a subject? The impression that Owen Paterson gave was misleading - clearly so for anyone familiar with the subject - and the statements he didn't make are essential for anyone to understand the state of scientific understanding. The best you can say about his words is that they were highly selective and designed to support a predetermined position, though whether it was his own selection or his advisors' is not clear. He is either incompetent or deceptive. I'm not sure which is worse.
-
Martin Lack at 01:52 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
Truly scary, I agree. Michael Fallon (Energy Minister) is also an misinformed puppet of the fossil fuel industry (as his attempts to discredit Tim Yeo in the recent parliamentary debate on the Energy Bill demonstrated). It is very clear, therefore, that Ed Davey (Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change) had both these men in mind when he spoke about the folly of people who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate disruption: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/04/2097641/uk-climate-minister-slams-media-and-blinkered-deniers-its-the-science-stupid/
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:45 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones, stringing together a set of individually correct statements doesn't mean they necessarily support a conclusion, for example:
"in proxy data CO2 is correllated with, but lags temperatures; the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperatures; the oceans have warmed, thus it is natural to expect that CO2 has risen as a result."
this combines three individually correct statments that come together to imply a conclusion that is false.
The problem with Paterson's statment is that it reveals that he has a very weak grasp of the fundamental issues surrounding climate change, as he raises several issues that provide at best questionable support, even where technically correct, for his downplaying of the anthropogenic element of climate change. This is a very worrying thing to see in a secretary of state for the environment.
-
MA Rodger at 01:19 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones.
You say @14 that you do not distort the language or ignore inconvenient facts. Are you then confining yourself to distorting numerical equivilances?
I ask this as you assert @8 that "the temp has not changed in the last seventeen years" is a statement of truth. So you appear to be telling us here that 0.469ºC = 0.245ºC, these being respectively the present HadCRUT4 rolling annual temperature and that same measure from 17 years ago.
Your assertion is truly a distortion.
-
shoyemore at 01:08 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
Tom Curtis & HJones,
A few barley seeds found in a midden does not demonstate the Vikings ever grew food crops on large scale. This recent, very small find only shows how sparse the evidence is.
In the medieval chronicle, the King's Mirror, a son asks his father about Greenland.
Son. You stated earlier in your talk that no grain grows in that country; therefore I now want to ask you what the people who inhabit the land live on, how large the population is, what sort of food they have, and whether they have accepted Christianity.
Father. The people in that country are few, for only a small part is sufficiently free from ice to be habitable; but the people are all Christians and have churches and priests. If the land lay near to some other country it might be reckoned a third of a bishopric; but the Greenlanders now have their own bishop, as no other arrangement is possible on account of the great distance from other people. You ask what the inhabitants live on in that country since they sow no grain; but men can live on other food than bread. It is reported that the pasturage is good and that there are large and fine farms in Greenland. The farmers raise cattle and sheep in large numbers and make butter and cheese in great quantities. The people subsist chiefly on these foods and on beef; but they also eat the flesh of various kinds of game, such as reindeer, whales, seals, and bears. That is what men live on in that country.
As I said above, the only crop was hay. No doubt attempts were made to grow grain crops, but no evidence has ever ben found that these were sucessful.
PS I misremembered "men who did not know bread" as "men who did not know beer" above in #2.
www.northvegr.org/misc%20primary%20sources/misc%20lore%20translations/004.html
It is almost not relevant to Paterson's point, and possible shows he owes his climate "science" more to Christopher Monckton and Lord Lawson that to his advisers.
-
HJones at 00:04 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones just ignores it.
I didn't ignore it. I didn't even comment on it, I only commented on Patterson's statement! You seem to validate his claim here
Yes, Funder finds that during the Holocene climatic optimum, Arctic sea ice effectively disappeared at summer minima.
whereas I left it as saying his comment was exaggerated.
Tom Curtis,
You are comparing apples and oranges here too. I am not distorting the language.
-
Robert Murphy at 00:04 AM on 13 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
"the climate has not changed, the temp has not changed in the last seventeen years."
Even looking at the very small component of the climate that is the lower troposphere, this is untrue. Over the last 17 years (this meme keeps mutating into longer periods, BTW), UAH shows over .16*C of warming; HADCRUT4 shows about .12*C of warming. GISS shows about .2*C of warming over the last 17 years. Only RSS shows minimal warming, about .01*C. I bet you think that one must be the correct one.Of course, as has been pointed out numerous times here, most of the accumulated energy from the enhanced greenhouse effect is going into the oceans, which has continued to warm unabated.
"To refute this last statement by talking about ocean heat content is comparing apples and oranges."No, it's looking at the whole picture not just the small part of the climate system that is the lower tropsophere.
-
DSL at 23:32 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones, are you actually going to stick around and defend/discuss your claims? I look forward to you doing so.
As for Patterson (and your defense, HJones), there's no critical contextualization being done. For example:
Patterson: "the Arctic melted completely and you can see there were beaches there."
This is probably a reference to Funder et al. (2011), titled "A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability—View from the Beach." Yes, Funder finds that during the Holocene climatic optimum, Arctic sea ice effectively disappeared at summer minima. That has been used to make MWP-like claims about sea ice: "sea ice has been lower in the past; therefore there is nothing remarkable about current sea ice loss." What Peterson, HJones, and sites like HockeySchtick fail to mention is that Funder et al. also found a hockey stick during the late 20th century. Arctic sea ice extent slowly grows from the HCO until it reaches around 1970, when it sharply goes into decline. Hockey Schtick went so far as to chop off that end of the graph. HJones just ignores it. Patterson has probably never read Funder; someone told him it would be a good thing to mention. They also fail to mention that despite the long-term decline in solar forcing -- and the short-term decline of the last 50 years -- Arctic sea ice extent is plummeting and will reach conditions similar to HCO summer minima within decades (again, without help from the sun; indeed, with the sun trying to cool). -
Tom Curtis at 23:27 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones @8:
Owen Patison indicated that the Arctic Ice was completely melted "when Greenland was occupied, you know, people growing crops", ie the MWP. That is false. He indicated that the LIA followed immediately the period when the Arctic Ice was completely melted, ie, the Holocene Climactic Optimum; and then proceeds to indicate that the MWP followed the LIA. Both false. Trying to find one or two words you can construe as true among that mishmash of confused falsehood shows only your desperation to defend the indefensible. Patison would have been better simply saying that he knows nothing of the issue, even though it is within his portfolio. That, at least, would be honest.
It is true that the Vikings grew crops in Greenland, but it is also true that they grow crops in Greenland today.
Finaly, over the last seventeen years, the Earth has warmed faster than it did, on average, since 1900. You may wish to distort the language so much as to say faster than centenial average warming is no warming - but that only tells us something about you.
-
Lionel A at 23:11 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
This does not surprise me at all. After all this is the government which is pushing for fracking as hard as it is trying to block green energy sources especially wind turbines.
As for US training, picking up on tamikenn57 at #6, sure there has been input from the direction in the shape of Richard Lindzen for one but I suspect the steady drip from other sources such as the 'squeezer of watermelons' aka 'Interpreter of interpretations' has been at work too.
Question Time has a record of allowing ignorant or ideological blinkered denialists on a panel where climate change is brought up as seen some while back where Melanie Phillips gives forth.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention John.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 23:07 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
HJones wrote "the climate has not changed, the temp has not changed in the last seventeen years. This is also true. There hasn't been any significant warming for quite some time."
This is incorrect, "no significant warming" does not mean "no warming", it just means there hasn't been enough warming to rule out the possibility that there has been no warming, and the shorter the period you choose, the greater the warming has to be in order to reject the possibility that there has been no warming. This is why climatologists tend to use a period of about 30 years for assessing trends. This canard has been addressed repeatedly on SkS, if you want to discuss it, then please at least read the appropriate article first.
-
HJones at 22:53 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
Let's look at what the SoS actually said:
the climate's always been changing - er - Peter mentioned the Arctic and I think in the Holocene the Arctic melted completely and you can see there were beaches there - when Greenland was occupied, you know, people growing crops
The climate has always been changing. Nothing wrong there.
The Artic melted completely - as the post points out - this one is objectionable - exaggerated - what ever.
beaches in Greenland - again, as the post points out, this is correct.
When Greenland was occupied - people were growing crops - The Vikings were there for a couple of hundred years - it is inconceivable that they did not grow crops during this time frame - so again, this statement is true.
we then had a little ice age, we had a middle age warming - the climate's been going up and down - but the real question which I think everyone's trying to address is - is this influenced by manmade activity in recent years and James is actually correct - the climate has not changed - the temperature has not changed in the last seventeen years
we then had a little ice age - we did. This is also true.
we then had a middle age warming - we did have a medeaval warm period. This is also true.
The climates been going up and down - again obviously true.
the climate has not changed, the temp has not changed in the last seventeen years. This is also true. There hasn't been any significant warming for quite some time.
To refute this last statement by talking about ocean heat content is comparing apples and oranges. I am not saying the man is competent. I am not saying that the man has a grasp of science. But to make claims that he does not have a grasp of science or is incompetent based on the above statements is just wrong.
-
Mikemcc at 21:52 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
I would suggest polite e-mails to his boss at No 10 to point out that such a view point demonstates incompetance to hold the office that he does. I sent one that said:
It has been brought to my attention that the Rt Hon Owen Patterson, SoS for the Environment, has demonstrated an amazing lack of understanding of the climate (http://www.skepticalscience.com/paterson-on-climate.html). That the SoS of the Environment is so blinded to the scientific position concerning a crucial part of his remit is remarkable and demonstrates a level of incompetence that makes his position untenable.
Regards
Mikemcc
the contact website is: https://email.number10.gov.uk
-
tamikenn57 at 21:50 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
That isn't good news putting somebody in this position using the denial talking points so fluently. Maybe there was some US training involved. My guess the denier pundits in US government will turn around and accept these public statements as another argument to refute science.
-
Cornelius Breadbasket at 21:26 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
Thank you - THANK YOU - so much for this measured response. I was left speechless when I first heard Mr Paterson speak on this subject. I have written to both the PM and to Mr Paterson already and covered much of what you have said in your article in my own correspondence. Skeptical Science is a fabulous resourse.
-
jsam at 21:15 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
The good news, for the BBC, is that they have clearly bent over backwards to accomodate the false skeptics. So they've dodged the Delingpole-Bishops Hill snarly swarm. The Conservatives will breath a sigh of relief too. They've been accused of being all warm and cuddly, eg allowing gay marriage - and allowing UKip to challenge them. Instead they've used the national media to reinforce that they won't be out-conservatived by anyone. They can be as anti-science as anyone, http://skeptical-voter.org/wiki/index.php?title=Owen_Paterson. Owen has a long, loud and proud unscientific bent. His statements weren't really a surprise.
-
Jonas at 19:35 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
Here in Germany, we also have deniers in the conservative and liberal spectrum, but also elsewhere. Fortunately, Merkel is not a denier, but she is a far cry from being the "climate chancelor" she once communicated to be, because she fears requesting more climate action might make her loose the elections.
---
Dennis Meadows recommended the book "Deceit and self deception - Fooling yourself to better fool the others" by Robert Trivers in a talk at the Smothsonian Institute. The book title fits particularly well for politicians ...
Review of Trivers book: " ... His overarching premise is that if we can only see our own point of view, we can authentically argue our case because our deceits blind us to the truth. Ignorance can be bliss, until you are outwitted by a perspective you don't share. ...":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/07/deceit-self-deception-robert-triversTrivers book and the SkS debunking handbook incited me to review my strategy: I now start with the science model (where does energy go, what forcings exist, ...) and try not make anyone look bad/stupid ("I also was confused by ..., but then I read": nobody likes to be stupid ...): it's kind of "agree and then embed into the full reality context". That works also for cherry picking ("Yes, I also read that May was statistically cold, but then I read that what we experience here is only a local phenomenon and that there were almost 30C in Helsinki and May was very warm in Pakistan with up to 51C ...) and downplaying ("Yes climate has always changed, but that does not help us, since the civilization we live in has developed in a relatively stable climate and why would we want to destroy this ourselves?").
I wonder if this works for politicians too, especially on stage, but it might be worth a try.
-
shoyemore at 18:12 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
"People growing crops in Greenland" ... the main Viking crop was hay for their domestic animals. One a few burnt barley seeds have been found in an old midden .. soemone may have tried growing it to make beer - the Greenland Norse are desribed in one annals as "not knowing beer". Vegetables were probably grown in small gardens.
Amazing how the (totally irrelevant) image of Vikings frolicking in balmy Greenland has seized the imaginations of politicians like Paterson, who seems to be have been atrociously briefed or just unable to grasp the salient facts.
If it is any comfort, Hain and Wood seems to have come out ahead of Delingpole and Paterson, who probably ending up pleasing no one. Thank God the Conservatives did not get an absolute majority to form a government on their own. The Liberals at least are a brake on their wilder fantasies.
Elsewhere, politically at least, there will soon be a Tony Abbott government in Australia (it seems), which will be "interesting". There is some comfort in Canada where the Harper crowd are mired in scandal and the more environmentally friendly Liberals have a new and popular leader. Harper may still cling on for a year or so, though.
-
mcba at 16:05 PM on 12 June 2013Lu Blames Global Warming on CFCs (Curve Fitting Correlations)
jdixon1980 @68, it doesn't make sense to add up impact factors over a number of journals. Since the impact factor is the number of citations per paper, about all you can do is average the impact factors for IJMP[A-E]
-
OPatrick at 15:31 PM on 12 June 2013UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)
This was shocking to listen to and shame on the BBC for setting it up in this way. There was no hope of meaningful debate with Delingpole on the panel so in most people's eyes Owen Paterson probably got away with his extreme views on climate change by virtue of sounding reasonable in comparison to him.
I hope this gets picked up and Owen Paterson is held to account for his words. I'll be contacting my (Conservative) MP to express my concern, particularly as he's just sent me a letter reassuring me that they are still working hard at being the 'greenest government ever'. Ha!
-
yocta at 13:23 PM on 12 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
I work in research and development in the CCS industry. The claim by Myles Allen that a priority to invest in this field is wrong at the expense of others.
Most researchers I know and have met would agree on those points.
However, a significant portion of my peers are very pesimistic about humanity and giving up its love of coal. I would not agree with comments that it is soley a political spin. Many of my peers got into the research in order to make developments, or, knock it down, but with scientific scrutiny.
A significant overhead is on the investment in technology, and so an active role is on CO2 reuse technology with an aim to lower the cost of CCS technology. Examples include enhanced oil recovery, and enhanced coalbed methane.
CCS does have the potential to work. It is expensive (perhaps up to 20% of a power station's running cost) but that doesn't mean we should stop researching it.
I think it comes down to perspective, on what the best solution is at the time.
-
Ken in Oz at 10:35 AM on 12 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
I think the true role of CCS so far has been as political spin, that encourages the view that we can keep on burning fossil fuels because 'soon' the emissions will be able to be sequestered. I still recall then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd addressing the UN and urging the world to develop working CCS, and recall thinking that what he really meant was that Australia would never stop digging up and selling coal to the world, so the world had better make CCS work. He may have been genuinely convinced of it's viability, but I struggle to see how it can ever be cost effective, even for those power plants that have the good fortune to sit on top of suitable geology.
I have serious reservations about CCS, starting with simple arithmatic; for every ton of quality coal burned there will be in excess of 3 tons of CO2 given off, all taking specialised plant and heavy energy usage to deal with. The kinds of deep drilling needed would IMO be much better used developing geothermal energy sources - probably less drilling required for that than for CO2 sequestration.
-
scaddenp at 09:30 AM on 12 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
Consensus is not a measure of scientific validity but is the only rational basis for determining policy.
-
scaddenp at 09:25 AM on 12 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
Phil, I would think that market forces would push electricity generation towards non-carbon resources. That said, coal is far more damaging than petroleum - we have so much more of it for a start. A move to oil instead of coal would be limited by production capacity within the oil industry. A move to gas instead of coal is probably an improvement. For many parts of the world though, electricity generation from non-carbon means would get a big boost. Will we pay more in the end? Up front - probably. The problem with the current price we pay for energy is that it doesnt include the external costs from climate change (and probably quite a few other costs in many parts of the world).
-
jdixon1980 at 08:06 AM on 12 June 2013Lu Blames Global Warming on CFCs (Curve Fitting Correlations)
John0001 @69, yeah, I think that's why Dana made only a passing reference to the impact factor, musing as to a possible explanation of why the article passed peer review despite its low merit, which is addressed in the rest of the post. I was just curious as to what an "impact factor" even is, how much lower this journal's was compared to others, etc., and thought I might save other curious individuals like me some legwork.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:06 AM on 12 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
william @4, maladapted @5, the argument that there is a concensus of climate scientists that AGW is happening has not been used by SkS, and should not be used to anyone. The argument used by SkS is simply that fake "skeptics" claim that there is no consensus, but on the contrary, evidence shows that there is. In turn, the claim by fake "skeptics" that there is no consensus is used as the premise in a number of invalid arguments such as - "There is no consensus, therefore there is reasonable scientific doubt about AGW", and "There is no consensus, therefore both sides of the evidence should be presented equally to the public", and "There is no consensus, therefore it is too soon to initiate any policy on climate change".
-
kar at 07:34 AM on 12 June 2013There's no empirical evidence
I have a couple of suggestions/questions about the text:
What about changing:
Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
To:
Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation messured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out but showing the contributions of other more evenly distributed greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
Something is missing at questionmark between figure 4 and 5:
... accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2
-
Mal Adapted at 07:10 AM on 12 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
William:
To use consensus to justify any scientific position is to stand on very shaky ground. We should abandon this argument. The evidence is very strong and speaks for itself. If the consensus was that climate change is nonsense, would this make it any more true.
The existence of the scientific consensus on AGW is not being used to justify the position to other climate scientists. It's being used to make it clear to members of lay public, who don't have the skills and knowledge to understand the evidence directly, that there really isn't a debate still going on about AGW within the community of experts, contrary to the insistence of the deniers.
Genuine skeptics who are not themselves experts on climate science will acknowledge and respect the judgement of those who are. On another thread I linked to the text of a talk by Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon at last year's AGU meeting, titled Scientific Meta-Literacy, I think it's germane to your comment as well.
-
Don9000 at 04:51 AM on 12 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
I agree with MarkR. Choosing the sequestration option as Professor Allen has done makes complete sense if we accept his argument's starting point: he is suggesting that humanity is incapable of not burning the carbon fuels that are causing the problem. In that scenario, sequestration is the only option left if we want to hold down the impact of burning all that carbon-based fuel.
Beyond the likelihood that sequestration, if chosen as the only solution, would prove to have serious limitations, I think there are two more pressing and daunting problems with Allen's approach.
First, it is unlikely to actually happen. For example, I seriously doubt that in the present political climate here in the US that there is any realistic chance that Congress could set us off on the carbon sequestration path in any meaningful way in the next several years. I'm sure many other countries would face similar obstacles in implementing such a fundamental course shift, and I doubt it would happen on a global basis in the time frame and on the scale necessary.
Allen's approach is also dangerous because if sequestration did gain political credence as a "silver bullet," the process of implementing it would give those opposed to taking real action a convenient excuse for delaying other possible solutions, since after the legislative sturm und drang we'd probably end up with a rather anemic array of "model" solutions that those opposed to systemic change would strum their political lyres over for ten or twenty years while the world continued to warm.
-
Phil at 04:32 AM on 12 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
I'm somewhat confused by the information conveyed by prices. I would expect an extra cost on electricity generation by mandating CCS would push the market towards petrol burning cars, space heating by oil and gas rather than electricity and use of local oil generators to (illegally?) produce electricity. Perhaps Allen consider this to be insignificant ?
-
John0001 at 04:31 AM on 12 June 2013Lu Blames Global Warming on CFCs (Curve Fitting Correlations)
A strong argument.
But should we pay more attention to Lu's Physics Reports (2010)? Phys Rep has an impact factor of 20.574, whereas he did nothing more than a random correlation in that paper!
It might be an open question to target the impact factor, because some stupid scientists have pointed this out:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/call-to-abandon-journal-impact-f.html
We should focus on the point that Qing-Bin Lu is not a climate scientist at all; he knows nothing about global warming! Far enough.
-
soo doh nim at 04:30 AM on 12 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #23
Thanks, guys. I debate these things in other forums and can use all the ammo I can get. Thanks again!
-
william5331 at 03:27 AM on 12 June 2013An estimate of the consensus project paper search coverage
To use consensus to justify any scientific position is to stand on very shaky ground. We should abandon this argument. The evidence is very strong and speaks for itself. If the consensus was that climate change is nonsense, would this make it any more true.
-
KR at 03:00 AM on 12 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #23
soo doh nim - Add in the fact that the satellite line in Christys graph appears to be the average of the RSS (~0.09C/decade, not inconsistent with model results) and UAH (~0.03C/decade) TMT data - the UAH data as produced by Christy and Spencer is a clear outlier.
This factor of 3x difference was, I'll note, not discussed by Spencer in his presentation.
Quite frankly, the outlandish accusations accompanying Spencer's blogging of Christy's graph say it all: with claims of the mainstream having "willingly ignored the evidence", "their willful blindness", and complaints that "scientists who still believe that climate change can also be naturally forced have been virtually cut out of funding and publication by the ‘humans-cause-everything-bad-that-happens’ juggernaut", Spencer is showing classic signs of denial. See Characteristics of global warming consensus denial #5, Conspiracy Theories.
-
jdixon1980 at 01:40 AM on 12 June 2013Lu Blames Global Warming on CFCs (Curve Fitting Correlations)
I was curious about Dana's reference to the "impact factor" (for people like me who need that explained, it is a measure of average number of citations to articles in the journal over some unit of time, probably a year?) of the journal that published Lu's article. The title of the journal itslelf is not mentioned in Dana's post - it is apparently the International Journal of Modern Physics B: Condensed Matter Physics; Statistical Physics; Applied Physics. Indeed, its impact factor of 0.361 is by far the lowest, being the only one below 0.591. Arguably, comparing the impact factor of a branch of a journal subdivided by topics to that of another entire journal is not a fair apples-to-apples comparison. However, a quick scan reveals that there are a few other journals or branches of journals directed to statistical physics (I assume that is where Lu fits into IJMP B), each having a significantly larger impact factor: Journal of Statistical Physics (1.397), Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications (1.374), Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear and Soft Matter Physics (2.255).
As another type of comparison, the impact factors of the entire IJMP added up (4.1) seems to put it more or less into a well-populated second-tier of journals, not remarkably tiny, but far behind some of the leading journals (it looks like there are six of them with impact factors ranging from 10 to 40+).
A modest pedigree that I wouldn't be inclined to think impugns the credibility of the article by itself, but certainly not one that is proportional to the media attention the article received, or that would tend to suggest the article was thoroughly vetted by climate experts.
-
Lou Grinzo at 01:25 AM on 12 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
While I think this is a very good summary of and response to Myles' position, there's an aspect of CCS that I don't think gets nearly the attention it deserves: The dichotomy between adding it to new power plants vs. retrofitting it onto old plants.
The former has more than enough hurdles we have to clear before it can be a useful contributor in our efforts to reduce GHG emissions, but the latter is truly a nightmare. Existing plants were designed and located without CCS in mind, making the complete process very expensive. I think this is largely why coal companies are so enthralled with CCS: They know that any carbon restriction that forces power plants to embrace CCS will also force them to abandon many existing plants long before their expected service lifetimes expired. Coal would be particularly hard hit, with some related industries, most notably railroads, also feeling big impacts.
-
KR at 00:57 AM on 12 June 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #23
soo doh nim - As Rob said, Glenn Tamblyns (and Joel Shores) comments are an excellent analysis of that particular mess.
The set of models Christy ran were for "Mid-Troposphere" using one of the highest IPCC emission projections (i.e., the top end of the model range), compared to the satellite TMT signals (with known stratospheric cooling components) meaning that that graph isn't even comparing the same atmospheric components. Nor have they sourced the radiosonde data - radiosondes and their reanalyses are an ongoing topic of evaluation. A more appropriate comparison is probably between those model outputs (with realistic emissions) and the UAH TLT or RSS TTT products; and it's noteworthy that if you compare apples and apples there is far less difference.
Spencer (and Christy) also fail to mention that satellite data has long been suspected of a cool bias, for example as per Chedley 2012 "UAH has a significant bias that reduces the midtropospheric trend", or Chedley and Fu 2012, who state that:
The analysis reveals that the UAH TMT product has a positive bias [...] that artificially reduces the global TMT trend by 0.042 K decade−1 for 1979–2009. Accounting for this bias increases the global UAH TMT trend from 0.038 to 0.080 K decade−1, effectively eliminating the trend difference between UAH and RSS and decreasing the trend difference between UAH and NOAA by 47%.
Satellite temperature products are the result of quite complex modelling - Spencers unspoken assumption that they represent 'ground truth' is not well supported. And Christy, who produced the graph, is well aware of this - he's an author on 2006 US CCSP Temperature Trends In the Lower Atmosphere, which states (emphasis added):
This inconsistency between model results and observations could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric datasets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report [...] favors the second explanation.
In short - the graph is nonsense, lacking context.
-
Mike at Watch the Deniers at 22:44 PM on 11 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
Good post on both CCS and the Allen's comments. "Magic bullet" thinking does concern me, given just how complicated the issue is.
Perhaps there is a place for CCS in order to draw down some of the CO2, but like other geo-engineering proposals it does nothing to address emissions. Then there is the issue of leaks/out gassing.
I dare say the response has to be multi-pronged, and by mid-century CCS will be part of the portfolio of technology responses. However, it would be prudent to match these with policies and mechanisms designed to switch energy sources and abate emissions. Critical to this is to keep the estimated 560+ Gt of Co2 in the ground, which would otherwise global av. temps beyond 2C.
-
MarkR at 21:35 PM on 11 June 2013A Miss by Myles: Why Professor Allen is wrong to think carbon capture and storage will solve the climate crisis
I understand Allen's point; he starts on the assumption that we will burn all fossil fuels, so all of that carbon will end up in the air. If that were absolutely true then logically only carbon sequestration would deal with it.
But I don't think he's demonstrated that it's true and I don't think he's shown that CCS would work economically.
He's basically argued for a trade war if countries don't agree to CCS, and assumes that's realistic for hugely expensive CCS but unrealistic for much, much cheaper alternatives.
Prev 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 Next
