Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 Next
Comments 47401 to 47450:
-
JvD at 23:51 PM on 18 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
"JvD: Could you provide some specifics on this? Perhaps refer to a few of these papers and explaining why they support your view?"
As I already wrote, Dr. Ted Trainer (among others, including Dr. David McKay) has already worked this out and has shown where the IPCC, WWF and Greenpeace renewable energy scenarios' fall down very badly. He has authored several peer-reviewed papers on this, and an article explaining his (and my) position can be found here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/09/ipcc-renewables-critique/
"On what basis is your view superior to theirs?"My view is informed by science.
"Renewable baseload: Distributed networks can and will have baseload capacity - I believe the reliable baseload for a sufficiently distributed network, with zero energy storage, has been shown to be ~1/3 of average capacity (Archer & Jacobson 2007). Average capacity is IIRC ~15-30% of installed capacity, varying with type/site - by no means perfection, but a predictable fraction."
1/3 of capacity when capacity is 30% = 10% of installed capacity, which is probably about right. In Europe, the firm capacity for wind calculated in the case of a European supergrid with distributed wind power was 8% as I recall (wind industry figures), so I guess the takehome is that the USA case offers slightly higher firm capacity for connected wind than Europe. Still a 10% firm capacity rating for wind power is *terrible* and does not contradict my position on the feasibility of 100% renewables so I don't know why you are making this point. Concerning solar PV it has a firm capacity of only 0%.Be warned BTW that Stanford's Jacobson is a known propaganda producer. After Fukushima, he made some headlines in the EU with a very frightening (and completely wrong) risk assessment for the safety of European nuclear reactor fleet. Similarly, in this paper about wind firm capacity it *appears* as if connected windfarms can provide reliable baseload, but in fact the firm capacity is only 10% of nameplate capacity using Jacobson's own numbers. Similarly, the Jacobson paper on the EU nuclear fleet risk *appeared* to show huge amounts of expected fatalities per year in the EU due to nuclear accidents (and it made headlines because of this frightening appearance), but on more carefull study it turned out that EU nuclear reactors actually *save* thousands of lives yearly when compared to the alternative: coal power.
So this is a general warning: researchers like Jacobson engage in propaganda which means you have to be extra alert when trusting their research papers. Often, the conclusions that *appear* in the abstract are 180 degree opposite to the actual conclusions that follow from the particular science, as in this case. Jacobson writes to make headlines, not to increase understanding. Wind power cannot serve as significant firm capacity, which means it can only provide a minority of energy needs. The rest has to be nuclear, or else it will be natural gas or ultimately coal which equals death.
-
MA Rodger at 23:45 PM on 18 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Tom Curtis @45
We should of course make clear - you do actually agree with Matthew L @42 in that you amply demonstrate that "the Mail on Sunday's reporting is atrocious" while he calls it "hysterically misinformed." Interestingly Rose's "analysis" was fantastic enough to be re-transmitted verbatum by the GWPF but it only managed to appear as a Newsbyte on Wattsupia (which adds further to the argument that GWPF stands for Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy).
Your disagreement with Matthew L is that he sees this journalistc nonsense as a consequence of people "making predictions such as those in the IPCC reports" while you consider it "absurd to blame climate scientists for the poor state of climate science communication."
Beyond the trivial argument that without the IPCC, without the scientific concensus, it is unlikely Rose would be given any column-inches for his climatological clap-trap, is there any further reason for Matthew L's view that making relatively precise predictions of future temperature is "foolhardy"?
In such context, the point as to which prediction is looking the more sensible or correct (Akasofu or IPCC) is pure theatre but hay-ho.The Akasofu graph (figure 5 in post) scales for 2012 as IPCC(central value) = 0.63, IPCC (range min) = 0.57, Akasofu = 0.39. Recorded temperature for 2012 are NCDC (which matches Akasofu's 'record' plotted back to 1976) = 0.56 (2008-12 average = 0.54).
And for 2013, Akasofu's graph yields a prediction of 0.37. Does anybody else care to make a prediction for the NCDC 2013 average? (So far, the Jan/Feb average stands at 0.58.)
-
John Brookes at 22:57 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Watts makes it very hard to take anything on his site seriously. He publishes quite hopeless stuff, and actively pushes climategate. He seems fixated on climate station quality, even after yet more work shows that its a non-issue.
There may be gems in Watts site, but one is inclined not to waste time looking for them.
-
Michael Whittemore at 22:57 PM on 18 March 2013Science vs. the Feelies
I have seen Venus used as an example of runway global warming causing the oceans to boil. I look forward to Peter trying to debunk the “Myth” of a possible runaway warming effect happening here on earth.
-
Tristan at 21:18 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
And doesn't that page actually say the drilling was done in 1990?
1990 - 38 = 1952?
I trust you'll bring this to Mr Watts attention, and that in the interests of good science, he'll update the graph.
-
Tristan at 21:10 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ugh, why was my spacing edited out?
-
Tristan at 21:09 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
So: 1) The paper was published in '99. 2) The most recent data in the publication is listed as 37 years after present Therefore, present can be, at latest, 1962.Moderator Response: [DB] Added spacing where seemingly appropriate. -
Leto at 19:44 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A Scott writes:
I also again make the constructive suggestion - that to improve the documentation - to provide firsthand confrmation - that you include a copy of (or link to) Figure 1 of R. B. Alley 2000, which shows the "present" date to be 1950 for that paper.That is indeed a reasonable suggestion, even if the route taken to it was somewhat 'inefficient'.
But do you notice a pattern here?
The SkS authors were correct in their claims about the Easterbrook graph (as you now seem to admit) - and yet you complain in strident tones that they have not laid out a sufficiently easy path for you to follow in confirming their correctness (in fact, the SkS post you linked to, http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm , made it clear that the date of the present had been confirmed by email from Alley).
The WUWT folks, by contrast, have been wrong and misleading about the same source (perhaps you are not ready to admit that, but I recommend you read WheelsOC again before replying), despite having the error pointed out to them many times - and yet you defend them, failing to realise that their repeated misuse of this source is indeed bad science.
Do you think it is at least possible that spending so long amongst contrarians has given you a cognitive bias? How else can you account for the extreme double standard? How could poor referencing of a true statement (even if that's what took place here at SkS, which I don't agree is the case) possibly attract more of your outrage than the clear examples of deliberate misinformation over at WUWT? Why no outrage at Watts or Easterbrook?
-
scaddenp at 18:56 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Well first A Scott, do you agree that the Easterbrook's graph is a misrepresentation? Read WheelsOC's comments carefully.
Moderator Response: [DB] A. Scott found the singular burden of compliance with the Comments Policy too onerous and has opted to recuse himself from further participation. -
AndyS at 18:30 PM on 18 March 2013Does Norway lack political commitment to renewables?
I have mentioned this on another thread on Norway, but Oslo has one of the best urban electric tram systems in the world. Their housing stock is also world class - many homes triple glazed.
If you point of the article is that Norway should provide a giant battery or load balancer for the fickle nature of wind and solar energy in Germany and elsewhere, then it can only be a win for Norway as they will get to dictate costs.
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 17:20 PM on 18 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
Quick and dirty gnuplot, using the same data, for the (no pun intended) polar plot purists out there. Thanks to Kevin C and of course Andy Lee Robinson for the idea.
-
WheelsOC at 17:15 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Well, how about an update about to my attempt to correct the misrepresentation of GISP2 data at WUWT?
My first comment and nearly all subsequent ones got through moderation (one didn't, but it was fairly inconsequential and is no real loss). Moderator D.B. Stealey (aka dbs aka Smokey) felt like making an issue of it, and Easterbrook himself commented a couple of times in an attempt to refute the correct information and support the error. He demanded an apology for my pointing out the mistake and calling it what it was.
Easterbrook continued to insist that the graph was labelled correctly, i.e. that "years before present" meant "years before 2000 AD." It's actually "years before 1950," which puts the most recent data in Easterbrook's graphs (which Watts subsequently reused and misrepresented as being Alley's) at 1855. This means that it captures none of the data from the late 19th century onwards. Easterbrook actually claimed that Alley labelled the X axis himself.
Since he was citing Alley (2000) and Cuffey and Clow (1997), I pulled up a copy of Alley's original paper and looked through the two data sets online. There was A) no graph similar to the one Easterbrook uses which labels anything in relation to the year 2000 AD, and B) all definitions of "before present" in Alley's paper, the Cuffey and Clow paper, and in all the GISP2 data sets and relevant pages at the NCDC, define "before present" as "before 1950." It is their standard convention for the whole GISP project (and many other fields involved in reconstructing the past). GISP2 pages at the NCDC explicitly spell this out in no uncertain terms. So not only was Easterbrook's claim unsupported, it was directly contradicted by the sources he cites. It's not even an easy mistake to make in the first place, let alone after the issue has been brought to his (and Watts's) attention for several years now.
None of the evidence I produced was addressed by Easterbrook or Stealey at all. I suggested that, because this was such a common issue at WUWT (Easterbrook's graphs get a lot of mileage there and this issue comes up a lot in the comments when that happens), someone at the blog could easily just ask Alley and clear the whole thing up once and for all. It would certainly give them iron-clad proof of their own correctness whenever the issue was brought up, IF they were correct. Apparently neither Easterbrook, Watts, or Stealey felt like this was a good idea! Fed up, I turned to Richard Alley myself and sent off a polite email asking about the dating convention he used, or if he ever labelled GISP2 data based around 2000 AD as "present." He confirmed what everybody else had already said; "before present" means "before 1950." He doesn't remember publishing any plot of the GISP2 data where "before present" is relative to 2000. I'm not the first person to ask him that question or get that answer. Gareth Renowden did likewise several years ago and received the same confirmation. I'd already given a link to his account at the start.
When I posted Dr. Alley's response in the thread, Stealey equated it to someone pretending to email the Pope and making up a fake reply. So not only did they have no inclination to ask for themselves to save their own credibility, they refused to believe someone who did (again). The last post so far is mine, pointing out that even if they don't believe me about contacting Alley, there is still all the other damning evidence in Easterbrook's own sources. Consistent with the rest of the exchange, nobody so far has offered any evidence to the contrary nor any argument to counter it. Despite being demonstrably wrong, nobody at the blog would budge or even acknowledge the error.
This just reinforces my previous suggestion for the eleventh denialist strategy: never give up on a bad argument no matter how thoroughly or repeatedly debunked it may be.
As an aside: this doesn't really seem to support A. Scott's argument about the level of scientific discourse at WUWT. None of the behavior I described above resembles a scientific approach. Scientists, for one thing, go out of their way to see if they're wrong. It's not just part of the job, it's part of the process of science. Neither Dr. Easterbrook, Anthony Watts, or D.B. Stealey treated the issue with a scientific mindset. Why should they? They already "know" what the answer is. They deny the validity of anything which contradicts their preconceived answer; regarding global warming, that means they wind up rejecting virtually all the science. That's what makes them denialists, and the ten strategies outlined in this post (+ my humble contribution) are how denialists operate. Hence the lack of scientific thinking at the blog; science and denialism are mutually exclusive because the scientific method doesn't work in the presence of a denialist mindset which can't accept uncomfortable data.
It's not just about climate change. Denialists of evolution, HIV/AIDS denialists, etc. operate from the same playbook. They all stick very closely to the stragies outlined here. That's how you can recognize denialism for what it is.
-
Leto at 17:06 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A. Scott,
You'd be taken a bit more seriously if you showed some capacity for recognising your own mistakes. Are you aware of saying anything in this thread so far that is demonstrably wrong? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Hint, try your post at 13:24 PM on 18 March, 2013 Do you still stand by all of that?
Leto.
-
A. Scott at 14:52 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Dana - I make the same challneg to you as I did to Sphaerica in post 75 above. You attack Watt's - now its different attack - that its "bad science" - I say prove it.
If you're going to attack - and claim its bad science - then you should have the ability - and the burden - to prove it. We are discussing the Marcott paper. What is "bad science" - your term - in the articles at WUWT on the topic?
You made the accusation - I think its perfectly fair to expect you to support it. If it is "bad" as you claim, shouldn't be hard for you to show it.Moderator Response: [DB] This thread is about Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water. Much of your challenge is beyond the scope of this thread - and thus off-topic. FYI. -
Albatross at 14:50 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Dana @76,
That has to be a new record for mental gymanstics to create a strawman argument by A Scott.
I knew that me posting that graph would throw those in denail into a tizzy. Scott did not read the figure properly, the final data in the graph (red line) are for the A1B scenario, not Marcott et al.. But that didn't stop him barking up the wrong tree again...
To be honest though I was being just a tad facetious ;) It is difficult to not toy with those in denial who take themselves way too seriously.
-
A. Scott at 14:38 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Albatross - do you really expect anyone to take that graph and author seriously? Did you bother to read his posting or just copy the pretty picture?
If you did could you perhaps apply spaerica's filter and tell us what scinece was addressed or discussed in that post?
(-snip-). The author replied to McIntyre and stated they had "clearly" noted the recent period findings were "not robust" - yet that hasn't stopped them and many others from touting them - as Albatross shows most excellently above.
You want to talk about the science of the Marcott paper sphaerica? I say heck ya - have at it. Lets see what you have to say about it. (-snip-).Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering and false claims of ad hominem snipped. -
dana1981 at 14:33 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Looks like a few comments got deleted - that should say Sphaerica @73.
I like Scott @ 75 talking about those 'science' posts on WUWT. I guess Bad Science might qualify as a type of science.
Moderator Response: [DB] Some comments were removed due to noncompliance with the Comments Policy. -
dana1981 at 14:31 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ditto what Sphaerica said @75. Watts spews all sorts of blatantly false BS (Bad Science, of course), but A. Scott decides to give him a pass and rudely attack me because a statement I made – which he admits to knowing is correct – isn't sufficiently adequately supported for his taste.
Absolutely absurd. And on top of all that, he's attacking me for saying "Watts' graph" when Easterbrook created the figure, but Watts didn't attribute it to Easterbrook! In fact, Watts implies that it's Alley's graph.
If only A. Scott would hold Watts to one-hundreth of the standards he holds me to.
-
A. Scott at 14:26 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Spaerica - you claim Watt's and crew do not discuss the science regarding this recent paper. Please support that claim.
Working backward I see:
The most recent 4 posts discuss the work Steve McIntyre is doing - which most certainly is about the science.
A guest post from Fred Singer - that discusses the science.
An original post by Willis Eschenbauch that is directly about the science - fancy graphs and all.
A followup - Part 2 - guest post by Don Easterbrook - further discussing the science
Another guest post by David Middleton - again reviewing and discussion the science.
Then there's a guest post by Don Easterbrook - yep that too discussing the science.
A post by Anthiny Watts that compares the Marcott paper's work to the GISP 2 record. Gosh - sure looks like that one is about the science as well.
That leaves the original post from Anthiony at WUWT. Which was primarily posting the press release about the paper. Which he updated with a link to Revkin's story with additional information.
So again ... which story(s) at WUWT on the Marcott paper do you believe support your claim:Watts and his crew do not actually discuss the science. They play games.
-
Albatross at 14:26 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Sphaerica,
Sadly I think A Scott believes his comments to be quite serious ;)
-
Bob Lacatena at 14:08 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A. Scott,
You're kidding, right? With all of the complete and total bullsh*t that Watts has spewed, and with what is spelled out here, your response is to attack Dana for failing to address a detail the way that you wish he had?
(snipped)
Moderator Response: (Rob P) - inflammatory snipped -
Albatross at 14:07 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Well, if Marcott et al gave Tony Watts and Steve McIntyre (aka Nigel Persaud) a hissy fit, goodness' knows what the graphic below by Jos Hagelaars is going to do to them (H/T Eli Rabett); it may very well give them brain aneurysms.
Forget nuances about how to splice these data together and qualms about the paleo reconstructions potentially missing high frequency noise, it is quite apparent that we humans are in the process in engaging in what has to be one of the stupidist experiments we could have possibly conceived. That stark reality has driven some who are driven by ideology (hello Tony and Nigel) into deep denial-- don't be duped by their fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) tactics.
[Source]
Moderator Response: [TD] Linked the Eli reference. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:04 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ray,
So you think that discussing a comparison between a peer-reviewed paper and a previous chapter of a doctoral thesis "would significantly enhance the discussion of climate change"?
I don't know how many ways I can say this. Let's be perfectly clear:
If someone has a specific reason why the Science paper is invalid, then it can be stated and argued. That's science.
Pointing to a chapter in the publishing scientist's doctoral thesis from several years ago, trying to draw false analogies, and trying to chip away at his integrity by doing so is not "discussing the science," it's playing games.
And that is the whole point of this post, the fact that Watts and his crew do not actually discuss the science. They play games. That is all that they do, although they do it under the pretense of discussing the science.
For anyone foolish enough to fall for that ploy... shame on you. Watts has been caught making enough hypocritical, false and misleading statements for people to be more wary about trusting him. The guy is pathetic.
You don't get a free pass. If you want to repeat his nonsense, then you're no better than he is.
There's discussing the science, and there's playing games.
I wonder what the difference is.
-
bill4344 at 13:53 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
How entertaining:
Stop playing silly games please. Your comment is nothing but an attempt to distract from the facts.
Which it clearly is, and equally clearly he didn't bother to properly read the post!
But admissions are for wimps; instead this is brazenly followed by an abrupt switch to new set of unsubtantiated chumming assertions!
-
A. Scott at 13:37 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
And since you brought it up and made some claims about what it says:
by has effectively extended the so-called and found that current temperatures are higher than they've been for 75% of the past 11,500 years, and the current rate of warming is faster than at any point during that timeframe.
In particular I'm interested in your claims that Marcott has "extended" the "hockey stick" and, further, shows "the current rate of warming is faster" than any point in the last [its 11,300 not 11,500] years.
I'm curious if you still stand behind theise claims, in light of the work that's been done by Steve McIntyre and a number of others showing the hockey stick portion of the Marcott paper is based on a very small number of proxy's and has other issues. And particularly in light of the fact the author seems to agree - stating they "clearly" indicated the recent portion of their work - the part containing the hockey stick - was "not robust." -
dana1981 at 13:34 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A. Scott - you should really read more carefully before launching rude attacks on others. If you had read the post I linked for the source of the GISP2 data, you would have seen that it says
"In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855."
As for your complaints about attributing Easterbrook's graphs to Watts, sorry, but cry me a river. I didn't build my shoes, or my bed, or my house, but they're still mine. Watts used the graph in one of his blog posts (and I don't think he even attributed it to Easterbrook).
Stop playing silly games please. Your comment is nothing but an attempt to distract from the facts.
-
A. Scott at 13:24 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Denial Strategy #3: Damage Control by Misrepresenting Data
When one chooses to attack others perhaps it might make sense to bother to get your own facts correct Dana.First - you attack what you claim as "Watts Graph" ... which you know full well was not Watt's at all. You had to copy and paste the URL here and in doing so would have clearly seen it was not Watt's at all:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.png
It is clearly one of Easterbrooks graphics, which would make perfect sense, as it was an article by Don Easterbrook. And the next graphic you show is clearly identified as Easterbrooks - not Watt's - in the inline comment in the graph and the URL.
Then you attack the accuracy, not of the data, but of a legend on the graphic. There are multiple versions of this graphic available on the internet. Many have the same (2000 AD) legend. It is not unique to Easterbrook. And there is a good reason for it.
You claim that 2000 AD is not the correct "present" date - that the data only goes to 1950. Yet you offer only another page at SKS as proof. When we go to that page here we see two more graphs from Easterbrook - adding more evidence yet you knew the source was not Watts.
On that SKS page we also find a NOAA graphic showing the R.B. Alley 2000 GISP 2.
Nope, no legend for what the "present" date is there either - even on the NOAA graphic you use to allegedly support your claims. You post a link below it to the NOAA FTP data for Alley 2000. My ftp is down, but a review of my archived copy shows - nope, zero mention of the "present" date there either. The only reference is "PERIOD OF RECORD: 49 KYrBP - present."We must accept your statement you are correct. Despite your failure to provide evidence that supports your claim. Doesn't mean you're wrong - but does mean you have failed to prove you are right.
(-snip-), lets go direct to the source - to NOAA's GISP 2 Paleo page for Alley 2000 and see what they say.Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Start Year: -107175 AD End Year: 2000 AD
(-snip-).
I'm well informed about this issue as I had the same question long ago when I first started looking at Alley. I went to verify what "current" was and had to dig very deep.
Now I just happen to know you are correct. (-snip-)."
Moderator Response:[DB] As an FYI, this site uses a Comments Policy very similar to that at Shaping Tomorrow's World. A policy you found onerus and difficult to live up to. As a suggestion: adherence to the Comments Policy is a mandatory condition of participation in this venue. Said participation is thus an earned right, not an entitlement. A right that can and will be rescinded should individuals here place themselves above that mandatory condition of participation.
Multiple inflammatory tone snipped.
-
JohnB6223 at 13:18 PM on 18 March 2013Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
An informative list of the known attitude of Australian federal politicians to climate change is here
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 13:00 PM on 18 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
So from a purist's perspective, the polar plot should be one turn around the circle = one annual cycle, with twelve spokes for the months? Yeah, I could see that. It'd produce a different shaped spiral, but I bet it'd be just as striking and informative.
-
quokka at 12:50 PM on 18 March 2013Does Norway lack political commitment to renewables?
As AndyS points out nearly all of Norway's electricity production is from hydro. I'm not sure what the point of the article is - it's all very vague. It's hard to imagine why Norway would have any motivation to build for example off shore wind.
As Norway already has a low emission electricity supply, what would be more interesting is learning about how that might be put to good use by electrification in for example transport, heating and industry. In particular a look at space heating by the numbers and what prospects there are for large scale deployment of heat pumps would seem very relevant. Heating must surely be a big energy consumer.
What the paragraphs on PV have to do with this escapes me entirely. It's hard to see the relevance.
-
bill4344 at 12:22 PM on 18 March 2013Science vs. the Feelies
ubrew@#2 ...as are many of our fellow planetary inhabitants, with more being added to the list with every year of inaction that passes! In the real world this means the expression - and everyone knows that's what it is - is a perfectly acceptable shorthand drawing attention to the scale of the threat to life as we've known it.
-
ubrew12 at 11:23 AM on 18 March 2013Science vs. the Feelies
Bill @1: I thought the same. An attempt at balance, but Hadley felt a need to finger wag at those who use the term 'save the planet' as if that was what was at risk (the planet is not at risk, we, specifically our civilization, are at risk).
-
William Haas at 11:03 AM on 18 March 2013Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
The theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will further retard the passage of IR radiation through the atmosphere that will cause warming. The warming in turn will raise the capacity of the atmosphere tho hold H2O which in turn will cause H2O to be added to the atmosphere which further retards the passage of IR radiation which will cause more warming. So the H2O additional warming effect is modeled as a positive feedback to adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This is what appears to happen in the lower atmosphere. But in the upper atmosphere the opposite occurs. The retarding of CO2 that warms the lower atmosphere acts to cool the upper atmosphere. It is in the upper atmosphere where IR radiation is radiated to space. Assuming a constant solar radiance and constant value of earth albedo, for the earth to gain energy the black body appearance of the earth has to drop which means temperatures in the upper atmosphere decrease. Decrease in temperature in the upper atmosphere causes H20 capacity in the upper atmosphere to decrease which causes H2O levels to decrease. H2O is a green house gas. H2O decreasing will have the opposite effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Decreasing H2O will allow more IR radiation to leak through cooling the lower atmosphere and warming the upper atmosphere. As the upper atmosphere warms back up again the net flow of energy into the earth is decreased. So in the upper atmosphere H2O acts as a negative feedback to added CO2. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable.
-
Ray at 10:51 AM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Thanks for a considered responase DSL.. I mention Gergis as there are similarities between McIntyre's analysis of her paper and Marcott's paper. You say the difference between the two figures is inconsequential but the uptick at the end of the Science paper is what has generated the interest. Consequently it is receiving attention form those who have the expertise to assess the published results. (-snip-). If those posting here and on "denier" sites, could leave their comfort zones to discuss points of science without rancour, as indeed you have done, this would significantly enhance the discuaaion of climate change.
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic/inflammatory tone snipped. -
AndyS at 10:32 AM on 18 March 2013Does Norway lack political commitment to renewables?
Furthermore, Norway is not in the EU, and has no commitment to be in any kind of EU supergrid.
-
AndyS at 10:24 AM on 18 March 2013Does Norway lack political commitment to renewables?
99% of Norway's electricity comes from Hydro
How does this translate into "lack of commitment to renewables"?
-
bill4344 at 09:41 AM on 18 March 2013Science vs. the Feelies
As usual it's a good little video, but, frankly
I'd like to speak to you about global warming, and about what we all can do to make an impact, to help protect our planet and to save our planet
from Kucinich is utterly unremarkable, unless one is indulging in an absurd level of pedantry - I mean hell, remember all those people who claimed they were going to 'feed the world' back in the 80's; that wasn't true, now was it?
Certainly Kucinich's comment does not much resemble the characterization of it that follows.
Sure, fears of Di-hyrdogen Monoxide and boiling oceans are fair-enough as targets, but if we're going to lump everyone who wants to 'save the planet' from global warming in with the 'God won't let this happen' and 'it's arrogant to believe we could change anything' brigade our chances of solving the problem begin to approach zero to an even greater extent than they currently do!
I suspect this is a good example of the perils of 'balance'.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:52 AM on 18 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Matthew L @42 (Cont)
The real problem with articles like that in the Mail on Sunday is not that the IPCC makes predictions, but that the Mail on Sunday's reporting is atrocious.
For a start, the IPCC's actual predictions are stated in terms of the expected difference in average temperatures over twenty year periods. Thus, the AR4 predicts that the average Mean Global Surface Temperature over the period 2011 to 2030 will be 0.64 C (A2 scenario) greater than the average over the period 1980 to 1999, assuming no major volcanic events and changes in solar activity. As there where two major volcanic events between 1980-1999, that represents a prediction of just less than 0.2 C per decade in periods not significantly influenced by volcanic activity (as now) and only over multi-decade time scales. This nuance is important, but completely lost in normal reporting (let alone the Mail).
Further, the supposed 95% confidence interval shown by the Mail is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is the envelope in which 95% of model runs are found. The two things are related but not the same.
Pressing on, the HadCRUT4 temperature series has only 2/3 rds of the reporting stations of the NOAA or GISS products; and what is worst, they have a biased distribution which understates warming. Use of HadCRUT4 rather than the GISS L/O index is unjustified, and makes large difference in short term comparisons.
As noted above, it is absurd to consider a prediction falsified because it has not yet crashed out of the 95% confidence interval, Indeed, by definition, we expect accurate predictions to spend 5% of the time outside the 95% confidence interval.
Further, Roses' panel of experts are a very biased selection, and not particularly expert in the particular topic. (Curry's area of specialization, for example, is Hurricanes - not GMST.)
In fact, it is safe to say the only thing true or not massively distorted in the article is the name of the author.
In the face of overwhelming incompetence, or in Rose's case, probable deliberate malfeasance, by reporters; it is absurd to blame climate scientists for the poor state of climate science communication; or in this case the total misrepresentation of the nature and state of play of the IPCC predictions.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:04 AM on 18 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Matthew L @42, the current temperature trend from 1997 is 0.074 +/- 0.175 C. That strikes me as being pretty much midway between the IPCC prediction of "about 0.2 C per decade" and Akasofu's prediction of "a halting of warming after 2000". Indeed, that overstates the accuracy of Akasofu's prediction, which should show a trend of (at most) -0.075 C per decade since 2000. Last time I looked, the difference between the Akasofu "prediction" and the trend ( 0.149 C/decade) was greater than the difference between the IPCC prediction and trend ( 0.126 C/decade).
(Out of time, more later.)
-
uknowispeaksense at 06:36 AM on 18 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
@Kevin C, communicating scientific information/data/concepts to laypeople is always difficult and the use of simple graphs accompanied with simple explanations is the only way to go with this sort of informtaion. I always shudder though at encouraging people to get out their trusty eyecrometer to examine a graph as that is the common practice at all the denier dens. I think the big difference though is where all the experts in those places eyeball complicated published graphs (or fake graphs generated by the usual suspects, sometimes with yellow highlighted trendlines) people like Andy Robinson are producing good quality accurate graphics that are designed for general consumption as they are simple, and eyeballing them won't produce erroneous conclusions. So, "purists" could maybe take a leaf out Andy's book and consider the necessity to communicate science to non-scientific people. After all, they are in the vast majority and need to be informed about what's going on, not just in climate science either, but across all disciplines.
-
william5331 at 05:44 AM on 18 March 2013Death in Jurassic Park: global warming and ocean anoxia
The release of methane from the sea bottom in the Arctic is interesting in this context. Methane has two effects. Bubbles which are reaching the surface, are scrubbing oxygen out of the water as the oxygen in the water diffuses into the bubbles. Methane which remains in the water combines with oxygen, depleating it and contributing toward acidification. Add to this, incredible increases in phytoplankton productivity as this formerly issolated water is exposed to sunlight and an anaerobic Arctic ocean is not out of the question. This will add methane from anaerobic processes to the methane being released from sea bottom clathrates. The oft quoted figure of 20 for the relative effectiveness of Methane vs Carbon dioxide as a green house gas is only true on a 100 year basis. Is only true if methane is being released at a constant rate over many years. For the short term effect on warming, as methane release accelerates, a figure over 100 is closer to the truth.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/the-real-strength-of-methane.html
-
MA Rodger at 04:23 AM on 18 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Matthew L
The Rail On Sunday article you mention. A strange article. Myself, I would have thought for a "95% certain estimate" to be "spectacularly wrong" it would have at least to stray outwith the zone of 95% certainty. The Daily Rail being such an informative newspaper doesn't bother to wait for the actual event but informs us it is "about to crash out."
The data appears to be HadCRUT4 annual data, so now we have the "foolhardy" Rail predicting the HadCRUT4 2013 average will be below the IPCC 95% confidence limit, which is what? About 4.7 deg C?
BTW - If there is a 60 year cycle, why is it so scrunched up within the BEST record in years before 1900? -
Bob Lacatena at 03:26 AM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
DSL,
The success of the tactic is so sadly predictable, even when only promoted with innocent questions like "I wonder why the difference" (Watts) or "Are there any explanations for these discrepancies of which you are aware?" (Ray).
-
DSL at 02:47 AM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Classic! Ray, go to Climate Reality's FB page and look at the most recent comment from "Jack Schit" under the "Climate Myth #10" post. It was posted 15 minutes prior to this comment. I'll copy it here anyway:
"So yet another Hockey Schtick has been shown to be a Fraud. Is it not time to admit that current Global Temperatures are not "unprecedented" once and for all? Then perhaps a mature discussion could take place on real climate drivers. http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/"
As I said, McIntyre knows his audience.
-
vrooomie at 02:12 AM on 18 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
Golly, Kevin, what a GOOD point! I see *no* cyclical nature, at all, of a graph showing *seasonal* ice averages from 1979 to 2013. How could I have NOT seen that wasn't cyclical?...;)
-
Matthew L at 02:09 AM on 18 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
I think making any kind of prediction of future global warming from such a simplistic statistical analysis is a rather foolhardy exercise. Akafosu would have been better to have pointed out the approximate 60 year cycle and left precise temperature predictions to the gambling fraternity! I know you will stick to your point about his prediction being wrong, but I will stick to mine that it is proving closer to the actual figures than the IPCC predictions. But that is all beside the point.
Personally I think prediction of any kind of the overall GMST is a dangerous thing to do as, over short (non-climatic) time periods of less than 30 years, it can very easily go wrong for the sorts of reasons you highlight (ENSO, volcano activity, quiet sun etc).
Making predictions such as those in the IPCC reports can lead to hysterically misinformed articles in the press such as the one in today's Mail on Sunday in the UK.
Ultimately the only way we will know if such a 60 year cycle does exist is if it continues to show up in the temperature record. What is clear from the figures though is that the climate is warming, and that the underlying rate of that warming is accellerating.
-
DSL at 00:29 AM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Incidentally, that's "Marcott" -- not "Narcott."
Ray, you're not serious with this whole McIntyre defense thing, surely. McIntyre's reason for attacking the change in graphs is as clear as the methodologies of Marcott's thesis and Marcott et al. (2013). It might be interesting to know the reason for the difference, but the difference is not worth freaking out over, and McIntyre's response qualifies as "freaking out" (the equivalent of stopping a group hike to point out a normal anthill). As you say, though: he's not an idiot. Why the reaction, then? And why post his thinly-veiled accusation of dishonesty before receiving and sharing the Marcott response? Hardly good auditor behavior. Let's ask the question of purpose a year from now, when I get people in the mainstream telling me that Marcott et al. (2013) is a fraud (link to CA). McIntyre is no idiot. He knows his audience.
And why do you keep mentioning Gergis? If Watts had to pull every post that had its methodology revealed to be "fatally flawed," the blog would be empty.
-
Bob Lacatena at 23:56 PM on 17 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ray,
1. You're not fooling anyone. Look up "concern troll."
2. Tom's points are irrelevant. Comparing Chapter 4 with the current paper is simply a foolish distraction, which works for people who want to see controversy where there is none, and who would rather focus on such trivial "controversy" that the facts of the science.
3. Steve McIntyre has spent a decade picking on a single graph and proxy study from 1999 that make up a mere fraction of climate science, and have been reinforced ten fold and multiple ways since then. In so doing he has accomplished zero, except to entertain deniers who want to see value in his "labors." You can worship your denial heroes all you want, but Steve McIntyre is going to be a sad, comical footnote when the history of climate change is finally written.
4. It's "Steve McIntyre", not "Steve McIntytre" (see, I can nit-pick nonsense, too).
-
Kevin C at 23:38 PM on 17 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
I have a "purist's" objection to the spiral graphic, in that polar plots are for representing cyclic data.
However what the spiral does really well is brings the beginning and end of the series together to show how much they differ. So while it's not the way a mathematician would use such a plot, it is an excellent way to communicate the changes to a wider audience.
I guess this highlights the fact that communicating data to specialists and non-specialists are different problems and so require different approaches.
-
Ray at 22:31 PM on 17 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Sphaerica @57 As the whole article about which these posts are being written is all about Anthony Watts it seems strange to read you think "I'm promulgating "Watts' idiocy" as my comments on Anthony Watts were only a couple of sentences. I merely mentioned he had posted figures from Narcott's PhD Figures as well as those from the Science paper. I really can't see what is idiotic about Watts doing that. And why is Tom Curtis insisting "on giving fodder...."? He appears to be making valid points about the two figures in question. That you may not like those comments is hardly reason to attack him for doing so. With regard to Steve McIntytre, he does not peddle idiocy. Incidentally it's Sistine Chapel
Moderator Response: [JH] The purpose of 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.
Prev 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 Next
