Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 Next
Comments 48051 to 48100:
-
Tom Curtis at 20:49 PM on 2 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Philip Shehan @88, Monckton's dishonest strategy is already clearly marked out in his very next paragraph:
"Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so.
Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 Celsius degree per century. Yet the IPCC’s central projection is for almost three times that rate over the present century."
In fact, the approximately 0.3 C per decade quoted by Monckton is the trend to the end of the 21st century if, contrary to the projections themselves, it is treated as a linear trend. The IPCC's short term projection for the period 2000 to 2020 is approximately 0.2 C per decade projection for the period. As they write:
"Committed climate change (see Box TS.9) due to atmospheric composition in the year 2000 corresponds to a warming trend of about 0.1°C per decade over the next two decades, in the absence of large changes in volcanic or solar forcing. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions were to fall within the range of the SRES marker scenarios."
That is, in fact, less than double the 0.125 C per decade (+/- 0.02 C/decade) trend since 1950 as measured by GISS. More precisely, and relative to explicit scenarios, the IPCC predicts that the mean global surface temperature averaged over the years 2011-2030 will be 0.64 C (A2; 0.69 C, A1B; 0.66 C B1) greater than the average over the years 1980-1999. The twenty years ending December, 2012 averaged 0.21 C greater than the reference period, and we are just over a third of the way to the 2030 end date for the prediction. Consequently the actual IPCC short term prediction is currently on track for fulfillment.
We can, of course also consider the IPCC retrodiction for the years since 1950. As can be seen, the trend of the IPCC retrodiction (in red) is scaresly distinguishable from that of recorded temperatures (in black):
Crucially, however, by extending his time period back to 1950, Monckton includes two decades durring which the IPCC retrodicted, and temperatures shows a slight negative trend. His game is evident. He wishes to compare years in which the IPCC actually (and accurately) predicted a low overall trend with IPCC "predictions" from an entirely different period, having misrepresented those into the bargain.
The man is an unabashed shyster.
-
jonthed at 20:27 PM on 2 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
Even if the same text and link gets pasted into a comment thread multiple times, I don't think that's a bad thing or pointless duplication. Especially if it's a busy comment thread, it means more readers will be exposed to at least one of the link's postings. It also shows a kind of strength in numbers. The more posts we have in support of the science and with good links the better.
One thing I also like about this is that the Reality Drop site itself becomes almost the Definitive source for any and all climate related news articles, even local level news from all around the world. I'll definitely be visiting it for this aspect, and if I can help out by quickly dropping in some rebuttals it'll be time well spent indeed!
-
Boswarm at 20:11 PM on 2 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Nothing to do with other websites - these BLOGGIES are a joke.
Why do you continue to pander to skeptics? They are not important.
Your original ABOUT page opening line states:
The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming.
Stick to this goal only - forget all the competition - just stick to your original motives Mr. Cook. Don't enter ever into a war against these other sites.
Start again explaining the peer reviewed science only - forget these rejects and BLOGGIE people.
-
Ray at 20:02 PM on 2 March 201316 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
Interesting that no-one (that I can see) has commented on the apparent between James Hansen's insistence that CO2 is the prime driver of global warming and the stasis in global warming despite the continual iincrease in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. An argument that other factors impinge negates Hansen's conviction and indeed the conviction of many modellers that CO2 is the prime driver. If so, why a slowdown in global warmig
-
bill4344 at 19:33 PM on 2 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Completely agree. When you have the likes of Jo Nova or 'Friend of the Ether' Tallbloke nominated in the 'Science' category we have tuly attained a World Beyond Parody.
-
Philip Shehan at 18:46 PM on 2 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
You do not need to look for heating in the ocean to look for global warming for the last 17 years. The spurious claims of no warming for 17 years is based on "skeptics" suddenly being made aware of the concept of statistcal significance, while making no attempt to understand it, its uses and abuses and limitations.
The first rule of statistical significance is that sample size matters.
"Skeptics" pick short term data sets for which the amount of noise means that no "statistcally significant" statement can be made about warming, colling or pausing. They are setting the data up to fail.
For the Hadcrut4 data, which is the median of the trends of the 5 major global temperature sets for the last 17 years, the trend is in line with the long term statistically significant trend for 4 times 17 years.
from 1945.
Had4
Trend: 0.094 ±0.019 °C/decade (2σ) 1945 -
Trend: 0.091 ±0.120 °C/decade (2σ) 1996-
If you chop the long trend into 4 concectutive 17 year periods, you get the following trends:
17yr periods since 1945 Had4
96-2013 0.091 ±0.120 °C/decade (2σ)
79 -96 0.119 ±0.116 °C/decade (2σ)
62 –79 -0.025 ±0.125 °C/decade (2σ)
45- 62 0.013 ±0.137 °C/decade (2σ)
Only one of these trends is statistcally significant, and then by the barest margin.
By chance the last 17 year trend is almost virtually identical to the entire period since 1945. Nevertheless you can chop the data since 1945 into 17 years periods and claim there has been no statistically significant warming since 1945, or you can do the mathematically correct thing and look at the whole data set where the signal to noise is adequate and conclude that it has warmed.
And I should warn against the tendency to think that Fisherian statistical significance, iwhich declares a range of 95.1% statistically significant but 94.9% not, is holy write or the only game in town
Recently many scientists have questioned the use of Fisherian statistics prefer to use other measures such as Bayesian analysis, which also has the advantage of taking into account extra information in its caluations. In the current contest it would ask what is the probability that the data shows warming for the last 17 years given that the data for the previous period back to 1945 shows warming.
I should also add that Moncton himself is subtly shifting the goal posts, so that the "no warming argument will soon become "not warming as much as the models predict."
In Monckton's own words:
"At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again. Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for n years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so."
-
Macro at 18:08 PM on 2 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
I have deliberately refrained from commenting before now in order to let the topic run its course (so to speak) however as bill warned some days back the commentator Andy S is not the genuine article, the good that comes out of the following discussions/rebuttals will be helpful to the genuine enquirer, but to Andy S it is just a game. Here are his comments on "Climate Conversation" (sic) a little group of "skeptics" who chat amongst themselves about the latest "climate conspiracy" following the above warning:
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Respectfully, comments made by SkS participants in other venues are not germane to the topic of this thread and are thus off-topic.
Thank you for trying to maintain a level of civility in this discussion and to keep others apprised of the off-topic commenting tendencies of some individuals. The moderation staff here is prepared to take any needed action with alacrity and full depth of measure.
-
Phil L at 16:53 PM on 2 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
John and brent, the quote was actually by A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on"
Rev. Charles Spurgeon (1859).Response: [JC] The version of the quote I use is by Winston Churchill, but that it goes as far back as Charles Spurgeon makes the contrast with modern times even greater. Thanks for the info. -
kcron24 at 13:06 PM on 2 March 2013It's the sun
Sun is the dominant energy source for life on planet Earth. According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Sun’s radiation provides around 10,000 times more energy to Earth’s climate system than any other energy source (IPCC 2007). Due to the magnitude of the Sun’s energy, small fluctuations of Since solar radiation is not constant, due to sunspots and other solar phenomena, changes in incoming solar radiation can occur. Collecting such data is imperative for climate research and radiative budget modeling.
Measurements of total solar irradiance began with the ERB satellite in 1979 and continued with ACRIM series of measurements. Ten years ago NASA launched the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment or SORCE into orbit. This satellite provides measurements of solar radiation from 1nm to 2000nm, encompassing 95% of the electromagnetic spectrum. Instruments on SORCE such as the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) allow the measurement of spectrally integrated solar radiation incident at the top of the Earth's atmosphere.
Background
Keeping human consumption in equilibrium with Earth’s climate system to prevent extreme positive feedbacks remains as one of today’s paramount challenges. Anthropogenic gases such as CO2 contribute to the climate change through the greenhouse effect. There has been an increase of about 0.8 K since preindustrial times. However, the current climate sensitivity in climate models indicates that the forcing by greenhouse gases would have contributed to a rise of 2.1 K (range 1.5–3.2 K) (Schwartz et al. 2010). In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the IPCC recognizes that there is more work to be done to understand solar variation and its effect on climate change (Forster et al. 2007). However the IPCC mentions that the effect of greenhouse gases plays a bigger role in recent warming than solar variation.
Gaining more knowledge on climate sensitivities will provide added momentum of restructuring the current dependence on fossil fuels. Some estimate this knowledge to be in the tens of trillions of dollars (Edmonds and Smith 2006). According to Hansen et al., uncertainties with the current knowledge of aerosol radiative forcing and solar irradiance limit the ability of current climate models to accurately predict with high confidence (Hansen et al. 2007). Suspect data collected by SORCE and other total solar irradiance monitors show that uncorrected instrumental drifts could contribute to errors in TSI trends (Kopp and Lean 2011). The small data set of 33 years and the imprecise measurements further contribute to unreliable trends and analysis (Kopp and Lean 2011).
In order to alleviate this problem more data needs to be collected with better equipment. Unfortunately, an improved version of SORCE with an upgraded TIM called Glory, never had an opportunity to make a measurement. Glory crashed shortly after launching costing NASA 435 million dollars. SORCE continues to be the main TSI collector. The future TIM measurement goals of 0.01% uncertainties with stabilities
Moderator Response:[Sph] Corrupted comment corrected.
-
AndyS at 11:59 AM on 2 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
kcron24 at 09:23 AM on 2 March 2013It's the sun
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Multiple off-topic snipped. -
brent at 09:17 AM on 2 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
John, the pithy quote goes,“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes,” and is ahem, by Mark Twain:
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed link that was breaking page formatting. -
Tom Curtis at 08:45 AM on 2 March 2013It's the sun
kchron24 @1072:
"Sorry I don't read articles that are not peer reveiwed by the AMS."
What? Articles in Nature and Science aren't good enough for you.
More importantly, this appears to be an admission that you are commenting on the contents of this page without having read the contents of this page. So, which is it. Is your claim false; or should you be banned from further commentary here as your refusal to read the articles you are commenting on means you are inevitably off topic, and vacuously pontificating.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:32 AM on 2 March 2013It's the sun
kcron24 @1070:
1) Given that we have had debated in comments on this forum suggestions that the current warming is due to radar, that the Earth is warmed by geothermal heat, not the sun, and innumerable people arguing that the second law of thermodynamics refutes the greenhouse effect, your suggestion that people "always follow the truth" is naive at best. More importantly, I know of no better term than denier for people so set against accepting the science for whatever reason that they can promote such absurdities.
More importantly, I have repeatedly seen leaders among the deniers such as Christopher Monckton make false assertions, they truth of which they clearly have not checked (on a generous interpretation) simply to vilify scientists and those warn the public about AGW. They also accuse scientists of fraud either as part of a machiavalian conspiracy, or simply for monetary gain; and accuse scientists of lying simply for telling the truth. You yourself, in the very post where you complain about abuse of "deniers", hint that scientists are committing fraud to stay on the gravy train. And against that torrent of abuse and calumny, we apparently "abuse" those who deny the science by calling them "deniers". We turn the verb of their actions into a noun.
Clearly you do not know what abuse is. Indeed, given your own little sally, you are hypocritical in your protestations about abuse.
2) I find it amusing that you should copy and past a bibliography to back up your scientific credentials without having even noticed that the last item on the bibliography refers to a satellite mission that failed at launch. Perhaps a bit more thought about the contents of that bibilography, and a bit less pontificating is in order.
3) Apart from one an oblique reference in the first paragraph of your first post, your entire commentary has been off topic for this thread. There is a reason for the rule that you should stay on topic, and even if you disagree with that reason, as a guest here you are obliged to accept the rules of your host. Please make the attempt to do so.
-
DSL at 07:39 AM on 2 March 2013It's the sun
kcron, did you read the intermediate and advanced tabs of this article?
Further, the studies you mention are getting rather dated. You should visit this page and its comment stream (and this one).
Also, "deniers" are not people who present a well-reasoned, evidence-based argument for low sensitivity. "Deniers" are people who misrepresent science and then refuse to acknowledge evidence-based correction of their misrepresentations. They engage in baseless denial.
What's your argument for low sensitivity (i.e. "little problem")? (respond on the appropriate thread -- not this one)
-
rockytom at 07:33 AM on 2 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
I just visited the site and found it very attractive and useful if one goes through the exercise as instructed.
-
Gestur at 07:30 AM on 2 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
Thanks, Andy, for this well written, insightful book review and essay. For some time now I (too) have been reading pretty extensively and trying to think my way through the concept of denial of climate change in a systematic way. As your essay and Norgaard’s book acknowledge, of course there’s a large, complex causal chain of factors for denial, and this chain likely differs significantly across different countries. I think from my perspective that the problem with so many discussions of approaches to denial—especially in comments arising in blog postings—is the way individual chain-links, or sub-parts of them, are brought up and touted usually as the critical one pretty much to the exclusion of all the others. I like to think of it as a viciously multi-factorial causal knot. And that’s one of the reasons I found your essay insightful with its discussion of socially organized denial, politically organized denial, and psychological denial. I think that sociology as a discipline has some advantages in its ability to acknowledge and grapple within this complex multi-level causal structure. It perhaps isn’t as strong at the individual level of the psychology of denial. In that regard, I recently read the collection of essays on denial of climate change edited by Sally Weintrobe entitled “Engaging Climate Change: Psychoanalytic and Interdisciplinary Perspectives”, and I must say that reading it has given me many profound insights into denialism. There are many essays contributed by a host of differing disciplines, not just psychoanalysts, and I found them are all worth reading and thinking about. You may also. I note, specifically, that Norgaard’s concept of ‘implicatory denial’ appears to be the same as the psychoanalytic concept of ‘disavowal’. [Succinct definitions of disavowal are ‘seeing it, but only with one eye’, or ‘knowing and not knowing at the same time’.] And importantly, psychoanalysts have both thought about and worked with that concept for a considerable period and the discussions around it in this volume were very useful to me.
At the risk of appearing to hoist myself up by my own petard, I’d say that my own bias right now is that more attention paid to this psychological level might offer the most benefits. But it’s important to realize that even within the domain of implicatory denial/disavowal, there’s a lot of heterogeneity as well and that too has implications for how to approach it.
Thanks again for this essay and I hope to see more from you. I had a pretty good idea myself last night after attending a program, “A Conversation on Climate Change with Cynthia Hopkins”, that audaciously charismatic talent and creator of “This Clement World”. [Alas, it’s too long to fit into the margin.]
-
kcron24 at 07:19 AM on 2 March 2013It's the sun
(-snip-)
I understand that its best to prepare for the worst but its also important to hope for the best. By the way I've read all the IPCC reports and I thought they were very good but they might want to update some of their eariler estimates of warming. (-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic and abusive usage of html snipped. -
gws at 07:18 AM on 2 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
Esop @19
I wonder if you exagerate a bit there. Can you provide some links to support your assertions, especially
"Norway has, without a doubt, the highest number of climate deniers/disinformers per capita in the world"
I agree that press coverage is dismal. But I find talking with folks that they have noticed the weather pattern changes, although they may not put it yet into perspective.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:10 AM on 2 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
For another example of the conspiracy mindset in Australia, DeSmogBlog has a post titled Climate Change Conspiracy Theorist's Report "A Pile Of Horse Shit" Writes Environment Editor, about a recent report and activities by Malcolm Roberts, who is the volunteer project manager for the Galileo Movement.
-
DSL at 07:04 AM on 2 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
I can't resist. From the Nizkor Project: "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
Based on the relevant evidence, several of the commenters on this thread have come to the conclusion that you exhibit the behavior of a troll. Shorthand: you're a troll. It's not ad hominem to call a person who exhibits the behavior of a dentist a "dentist." Ad hominem would occur if I used something irrelevant, like the color of your skin, as evidence that you have poor critical thinking skills.
-
mdenison at 06:59 AM on 2 March 201316 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
This is a copy of a comment/question I made of Tamino at openmind. I thought it may interest people here and they may have answers.
----------
Following your comments in a previous post on wildfires where you used non parametric (Theil) regression I wondered if it were possible to use this for temperature trends. A quick search in google-scholar indicates Theil-Sen estimators (TS) are used in climate science but I could not spot an obvious paper analysing global temperature. Are you aware of any?
One of the points made in wikipedia about the 'Theil-Sen estimator' is that you can obtain a similar sample variance in slope from fewer data points and the slope should also be less affected by outliers.
Using the annual giss data I think you can use about 2/3rds of the points and get similar results to Least squares regression; so a 15 year period (97-2012 incl.) gives a similar slope as LMS over 26 years (86-2012 incl.). I get a slope of 0.17 C/decade. The error is about 0.05 but I suspect my methodology is inappropriate. On a graph I plotted a 16yr rolling median and it is evident that the 16yr TS line is very similar to the 27yr LMS line. Surprisingly I find 9 of the highest rates of warming occurred in the last 10 years.
Could you comment on how appropriate the method is for estimating the rate of surface warming? Could it be a better estimator for rebutting claims of no warming obtained from short time periods?------------
(Why surprising? - Because that is not the finding made here for a post 1997 trend)
-
WheelsOC at 06:59 AM on 2 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
That's pretty much what I do on a daily basis, except without the benefit of using the website to keep track of all my Internet Arguments.
-
r.pauli at 06:06 AM on 2 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
My favorite quote:
"Of all the adaptation schemes, the least effective is denial."
- Psychotherapist Dr. Betty Merton -
Composer99 at 05:00 AM on 2 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
Given the strength of Skeptical Science's rebuttals I am glad they are the core of the Reality Drop rebuttals.
-
Esop at 04:10 AM on 2 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
Interesting post, indeed. Pre 2010 I'd say that Norwegians as a whole were rather concerned about climate change, as they had seen the effects from approx. 1989. However, once the Arctic circulation patterns changed in the winter, due to the rapidly warming Arctic and collapsing sea ice, cool winter weather made a return, and the previous concern turned into hard core denial, not only among the general population, but the MSM as well. Very little is reported on the rapidly increasing number of climate related disasters around the world, and basically not a word about the extreme Arctic warming or disappearing sea ice. As a result, the general population is kept in the dark, as they are not able or willing to do the proper research themselves. Norway has, without a doubt, the highest number of climate deniers/disinformers per capita in the world. The misinformation and outright lies these disinformers are allowed to get into print in the major newspapers on almost a daily basis is mind blowing, while the replies to the disinformation from real (some top notch) scientists are often censored, causing a huge denial/disinformation bias in the media.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:25 AM on 2 March 2013It's the sun
kron24... It would be, likewise, completely irresponsible for scientists to not warn people of an imminent crisis when evidence shows that one is present.
The overwhelming evidence of a crisis is there. That you refer to it as a "little problem" reveals your inadequate understanding of the full body of research.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 23:56 PM on 1 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
I re-read to make sure but indeed there is no ad-hom argument from me in this thread, or any other for that matter. It seems Andy can't be bothered to verify to meaning of "ad-hom" any more than he can properly copy my name. I would advise all to refrain from attempting any exchange with Andy S, as it is proving so far to be a complete waste of time.
Moderator Response: [JH] Point of clarification - the commentor Phillipe is referring to is "AndyS" not "Andy S." -
MA Rodger at 22:28 PM on 1 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
(With due regard to gws @78), this thread has long been dominated by one commentor who has singlehandedly written 25% of the comments. It took over half of these for him to get away from asking particulars of what was actually said or intended to be said by Pachauri (and later Hansen) although now this is long forgotten. The flavour of the moment is comment about "the message" as presented to the world by the media outlet.
I do consider this rather odd behaviour for one who professes to "...get a bit tired of this endless dissection of what people said or what people believe." unless the term 'people' is shorthand for 'people other than me'. (Perhaps this is a symptom of some form of solipsism.) In the latest dissection of what 'people' said, there is evidence of a more epistemological approach to the issue. "i am merely pointing out the message as I see it portrayed to the outside world." It is difficult to assess what stage of the 'merely pointing out' process we have reached so far and how many more thousand words will be required to complete it. Then, does it matter? I would assess that most of the audience on this thread has packed up and gone home long ago. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:15 PM on 1 March 2013It's the sun
kcron24 - I would encourage you to read the IPCC WG1 scientific basis reports, you will find that the scientists presentations are generally rather moderate. I would start with the 1990 report as this is written in rather less technical language than subsequent editions (which have become increasingly terse due to the increase in the amount of research that has been performed). In particular they explicitly discuss the uncertainties.
Of course many climate blogs do not present the science that way, but as a clear statement of the mainstream position is freely available on the WWW (i.e. the IPCC reports), you can always verify the truth for yourself.
All this article is doing is explaining how it is we can be pretty sure that the warming we have seen in recent decades is not caused by solar activity. I personally don't see how this can be described as "fear mongering". SkS is a site for discussing the science, so if you don't want to talk about the science relating to the effect of solar activity on climate, then please find a more appropriate article for your comments. Posting comments that are off-topic is disruptive behaviour, and is likely to result in attention from the moderators. -
kcron24 at 21:38 PM on 1 March 2013It's the sun
Please reread my comment. I feel climate sciencitists have great work but a terrible way of handling climate change. Using fear to intimidate people only makes matters worse... Eduation is key not brainwashing. There is where the debate is. That is all I'm saying.
-
CTG at 21:36 PM on 1 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
"I haven't actually made any scientifix claim,"
This may inadvertantly be the closest that AndyS has ever made to a true statement. Let us assume for the moment that he actually meant "scientific claim", it would certainly be true that Andy's claims are not scientific. For example, saying that the warming trend over the last 16 years = 0, that would definitely not be scientific, Or even scientifix.
-
AndyS at 19:46 PM on 1 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
I am puzzled by his last comment. I haven't actually made any scientifix claim, nor am I trying too present any argument as such.
i am merely pointing out the message as I see it portrayed to the outside world.
since SkS is primarily about getting that message right,as it sees it, then I would have thought this was relevant and constructive, even if we may disagree on certain parts, it might be helpful to get an outside view
furthermore, though slightly off topic, but on the topic of the Hansen paper, I suggested that investment in a satellite for measurement of aerosol forcing would be a good idea. I sense some frustration in Hansens article. Though I disagree with his mixing of activism with science, I can recognize the true scientist in him in this article
Moderator Response: [JH] Please note that posting on Skeptical Science is a privilege, not a right. We try to avoid harsh application of the comments policy in the interests of a free flowing discussion, but expect your cooperation in return. If that cooperation is not forthcoming, moderators will resort to a very strict application of the comments policy to your posts, and if persisted with, it will result in deletion of your posts, or the suspension of your posting privileges. -
CTG at 18:51 PM on 1 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Guys, there is literally no point in arguing with AndyS. If ever you suggest that he has said something, he will say he has said the opposite. If ever you point out his arguments are unscientific, he will claim that he argued something else. He is not interested in debate, merely in the appearance of debate. Just ban him already, he won't be missed.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed spelling of AndyS. -
gws at 18:50 PM on 1 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
AndyS
"I do get a bit tired of this endless dissection of what people said or what people believe."
Then why did you repeatedly do it on this thread?
"The only discussion worth having, in my view, is what is the climate system's sensitivity to CO2."
Then why are you still here on this thread?
Seems you are unaware of what you are saying, whether on purpose or not.
-
bill4344 at 17:28 PM on 1 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
Chris G @ 6
Would you drive to the other side of the globe for your holidays?
Neither would anyone else...
-
Tom Curtis at 16:11 PM on 1 March 2013It's the sun
kcron24 @1065, not only does the sun have a timer as it proceeds towards the red giant stage, in just over five billion years, or ten times longer than there has been vertebrate life on Earth, but it is also gradually warming over time. Four billion years ago, it only gave of 70% of its current light, whereas in a mere 3.5 billion years it will drive the Earth into a runaway greenhouse effect.
So how long will this warming sun take to reach an increase in luminosity equivalent to the doubling of CO2? Approximately 300 million years! Three hundred million years ago the first vertebrates land animals were just evolving. That is a period more than a thousand times longer than Homo sapiens have existed. Yet that is the time period before the increase in solar luminosity will match the threat we expect from increased CO2 in just this century.
Given the time scales evovled, perhaps we can wait before tacking increases in solar lumnosity, and concentrate, in the mean time, on more pressing problems.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:50 PM on 1 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #8
I am sorry to hear that Tom. I'll echo others to thank you for most valuable contribution to the site, you will be missed.
-
DSL at 14:27 PM on 1 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Well that sucks, Tom. I hope it won't mean an end to your surgical debunkings. Your critical thinking skill is inspiring and, I think . . . I hope, contagious.
-
kcron24 at 13:20 PM on 1 March 2013It's the sun
I think it is inappropiate to name this forum topic as 'It's the Sun'. This forum shows confusion amoung a lot of smart people. For people who have no scientific background it is hard to establish what this phrase means. If anything it would confuse an average person. Planet Earth's life has a timer as the sun progresses to become a red giant(the luminousity becomes greater with time). This does not mean that we should not take into consideration that the unregulated pumping of greenhouse gases can destroy the current equilbrium we have. Essentially scienitists are worried about the equilbrium (positive and negative feedbacks) of our system. Our fossil fuel emissions lead to an imbalance of this equilbrium. This imbalance can potentially lead to a positive feedback that quickly changes the state of the system. This is where the danger is. Climate change is a confusing topic for most and the anger towards 'deniers' is unwarrented. The solution to climate change is easy in my eyes. Transfer all that energy that you put into proving climate change into creating a new energy source that is more efficient than fossil fuels. Peak oil tells us that fossil fuels are finite. Energy gradients are not (solar, wind and many others yet to be discovered). Stop using fear mongering on both sides, it is unnessary. A fearful public is a public more likely to make bad decisions. There is nothing to worry about. Technology and science will solve this little problem called climate change. That is my life's pursuit as a scientist.
Moderator Response: [DB] Note: Your comment more properly belongs on the "It's not bad" thread. -
AndyS at 11:21 AM on 1 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
Aren't there quite a lot of sceptic scientists at the University of Oslo?
-
Composer99 at 11:05 AM on 1 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #8
I would like to echo John Hartz' comment @3 and thank you, Tom Curtis, for your efforts here at Skeptical Science. Anytime I see a long comment by you in a post, I know I can look forward to a clear, incisive argument that either carefully builds up the case for the science or demolishes some (set of) pseudoskeptic claim(s).
-
Andy Skuce at 11:05 AM on 1 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
numerobis@14
Norgaard's study was done just in one small town. It was not a representative sample of the whole country but a focussed look at the attitudes and culture of one community, at one time. I am not aware of any kind of Norwegian equivalent of the Six Americas study but I am sure that somebody has done something like that. Norgaard used a magnifying glass, rather than a telescope.
There will, of course, be huge variations in attitudes within any society, in time, in place and between different social sub-groups. Nevertheless, there will also be common human reactions and social responses to similar challenges in different societies. The value that I drew from Norgaard's work was not how different the people she studied were from people I meet, but rather how similar they are.
-
John Hartz at 10:45 AM on 1 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #8
@Tom Curtis #2:
Thank you all of the time and effort that you have donated to Skeptical Science over the years.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:11 AM on 1 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #8
This is to note that I have resigned from formal involvement in SkS over differences regarding strategy.
-
AndyS at 09:56 AM on 1 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Actually, I did read Hansen's paper and commented on it elsewhere, some time ago
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Off topic and abusive usage of html snipped. -
John Russell at 09:51 AM on 1 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
Chris G #6
Do I detect some self-justification?
The point is that it's only by air that a couple can fly 5,000 miles to New York for the weekend "to do a bit of shopping and to take in a show". It's the ease of the 'concentrated' burning of fossil fuels, at minimal financial cost, that makes flying so environmentally damaging. If aviation fuels were taxed to reflect the emissions produced, flying would perhaps not be such an easy target for environmentalists.
-
numerobis at 09:44 AM on 1 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
In Canada, as I'm sure you'll mention, attitudes differ depending on the location. How much variance is there in Norway?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 09:25 AM on 1 March 2013No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down
I was interested to encounter this article on diatoms, which says in part
"Because of their abundance in marine plankton, especially in nutrient-rich areas of the world's oceans, diatoms probably account for as much as 20% of global photosynthetic fixation of carbon (~ 20 Pg carbon fixed per year: Mann 1999), which is more than all the world's tropical rainforests."
Warming and acidifying oceans are probably not going to help these little critters, making the atmospheric CO2 drawdown equation even more difficult to resolve.
-
Andy Skuce at 08:44 AM on 1 March 2013Living in Denial in Norway
AndyS@10
If we consider Norway as a rich country as measured by GDP per capita, as is referenced in my first link, then I don't see why it is misleading to quote the barrels of oil per capita as a metric, particularly when oil and gas makes up 21% of the GDP and 50% of the country's exports. In any case, Norway is, in absolute terms, a major producer of oil and gas, regardless of its population.
To be clear, the purpose of Norgaard's book (and my article) is not to single out Norway as a particular villain because of its contribution to climate change. Rather, it is to examine the way in which ordinary people in that country reconcile their great wealth—a large part of which comes from producing climate-changing fossil fuels—with their identity as globally responsible and nature-loving people. My next article will be on similar attitudes in my own country, Canada
Norwegians are also relatively immune from the misinformation coming from people like the Kochs, Anthony Watts or Christopher Monckton and this helps isolate their form of denial from the literal climate denial that we spend most of our time at Skeptical Science trying to rebut.
Prev 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 Next
