Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 Next
Comments 48201 to 48250:
-
DSL at 01:07 AM on 6 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
To further what Leto said, which I completely agree with, it should also be recognized that many of the people who lurk at WUWT and its analogues do not have the training to tell the difference between results that have been produced with shoddy (Eschenbach, Watts) or fraudulent (Coleman) methodology and those that have been produced by rigorous scientific method (inc. peer review). There are undoubtedly a handful who have, through constant contact, learned enough to sort of tell the difference, but they're now so invested in Tony's message that it's all but impossible to use reason and evidence to pry open the door to the mind.
And Eclectikus, you may call my earlier chain of reasoning ridiculous, but I didn't post it with the expectation that you would accept the responsibility. I posted it because I wanted to see the basis of your doubt. My hypothesis is that your doubt is politically motivated and has nothing to do with the science. Nothing you've said to this point has falsified that hypothesis. Your 17 years as a "geophysicist" (a rather broad category) is apparently not relevant.
-
gws at 00:40 AM on 6 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Physicist-retired: note that the "38%" in the text is for CO2 emissions only, not total greenhouse gas emissions. The Cornell report sums greenhouse gas emissions, AFAIK. The crux is that fracking and other fossil fuel extraction activities are a source of methane, which is a strong greenhouse gas. If too many leaks occur during gas extraction, the fugitive emissions of methane can negate or even overwhelm the achieved savings from burning gas instead of coal.
-
Physicist-retired at 23:35 PM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Dana,
Thanks for another good piece.
You raise an issue that's been bothering me for some time. Perhaps you can shed some light on it.
"38% of the 2012 emissions reduction was due to natural gas replacing coal"
Research from Cornell seems to show that NG from fracking is actually very dirty, and probably dirtier than even coal. (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April11/GasDrillingDirtier.html).
In view of the fact that our NG is increasingly coming from fracking, are our emissions truly decreasing as we replace coal, or is there a flaw in our accounting methods (i.e., just looking at power plant emissions as opposed to complete lifecycle impacts)?
-
Leto at 23:00 PM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus@43 wrote: "To say that blogs as WUWT, and many other in the same wave are pseudoscience crap, says nothing about these blogs and a lot about the people claiming that."
With this thread in mind, I had a quick look at WUWT, and immediately met the article Tom Curtis address @77. Thanks Tom pointing out some of the many errors in Coleman's article. I know you were spoiled for choice. It was a shoddy article from start to finish.
Eclectikus, may I suggest you have it backwards. To not notice that WUWT is full of pseudoscience crap takes a particular cognitive bias, or a surprising amount of scientific illiteracy, such that if someone told me they were impressed with WUWT it would immediately tell me a lot about that person - and nothing much about WUWT.
For scientists like Curry to allow themselves to be associated with WUWT, or to speak favourably of WUWT - to not run a mile from WUWT - tells me they are possibly more interested in propaganda than science, or perhaps more interested in the fame that comes from being a dissenter.
In these discussions, I often see traces of the romantic idea that the scientific consensus is wrong and a few brave voices resist the peer pressure... The history of science is full of examples of the consensus being wrong, and a genius bringing in the new paradigm, so it is a tempting notion. Especially because denialism is a soothing idea, telling us all is well, allowing us not to make any sacrifices. Unfortunately, a quick read of the WUWT site punctures the romantic idea of brave dissent immediately. The Coleman article is inconsistent, illogical, filled with half-truths, straw men and cherry picking. Worse, those faults are so obvious that the WUWT editors must know they are publishing rubbish. Note that WUWT is not wrong because it is a dissenting voice; it is wrong because it is transparently riddled with errors.
To award WUWT a science blog award when it promotes the antithesis of scientific thinking is farcical.
-
MA Rodger at 20:52 PM on 5 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
The final link @97 should have been to www.oco.noaa.gov/resources/Annual_Meetings/ASR7_Oct2010/Day2/02_Session6_Johnson.pdf (see table on page 8).
-
MA Rodger at 20:41 PM on 5 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Ken in Oz @96
Comparing the uncertainties of surface temperature records with OHC records does show OHC as now providing the more sensitive measure of AGW (although they do measue different things, ΔOHC being a function of the forcing imbalance while Δtemp is the outcome of forcings as they become balanced).
Surface temperature records (HadCRUT3 monthly data for instance) has measurement uncertainty of about +/- 0.2º C, the same order of magnitude as a decade of temperature increase. And wobbles in the monthly averages can be 0.5º C, equal to a multi-decadal rise.
The recent 0-2000m OHC ARGO measurement uncertainty is shown as +/- 0.5 e22 J, the order of magnitude of an annual increase, with big wobbles in quarterly data of 3 e22 J, far less than a decadal increase.
Of course the ocean extends below 2000m but figures quoted for the abyssal annual ΔOHC (=0.15 +/- 0.10 e22 J) show there would be little difference to that OHC/ST relative accuracy.So OHC should be able to show variations in the forcing imbalance over period far shorter than a decade. Less than 5 years? Probably yes.
-
Paul D at 19:39 PM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
China has been copying the past bad ways of the Western economies.
It's a bit stupid to actually say that the US, Europe et al should continue along the lines of fossil fuels etc and then criticise China for having dirty rivers, underground coal fires, thousands of coal fired power stations etc.If you are criticising China, then you can't support the same unrestricted use of resources elsewhere.
As always with political ideology, it throws out evidence in order to stay on the ideology track.China is a mess and it should never have gone down the route it has. We can not excuse it because there is no doubt that carbon emissions were much lower in China before it decided to 'compete' with the West. That doesn't justify communism either.
The reality is that to cut carbon emissions, you can't purely rely on technology and assume that it will compensate for economic growth. People have to use less energy and materials, that is something that neither capitalists or socialsists are able to cope with, as such they don't have much of a future IMO.
-
Eclectikus at 18:17 PM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Wow, a lot of info, I will read it with interest. Thank you all!
Some quick impressions:
Tom Dayton (#73) and Tom Curtis (#75, 76): It is important to realize that I was referring to the consensus that Popper is one of the great philosophers of the twentieth century, not about all his disquisitions. As stated Tom Curtis (#76) there is no consensus in philosophy. However, the philosophy (and science in general) advances thanks to there are people who are out of the consensus, thanks to the discussions that take place inside and outside of this consensus, and from my point of view it makes fascinating the history of thought: the not remain standing with a theory however much it may seem correct at first glance.
Rob Honeycutt (#74), even accepting the motivations that you point out, I think withdrawing would have been more effective after winning the contest. I do not think that a powerful site like SkS is not able to mobilize its readers and overcome the awards, I think mobilizing it's totally legitimate and works exactly as Western democracy: advertising and mobilizing supporters. I myself am a finalist in another category (Best Education Blog / Science is Beauty) and ask my readers vote without any shame... Should I be ashamed?
Tom Curtis (#77): Interesting, thanks. But I have to leave now, let me think about before to say anything.
-
BillEverett at 17:38 PM on 5 March 2013‘Frozen Dirt’ and Methane … ‘We Cannot Go There’
Regarding the 1.5 degree tipping point, my recollection is that the 1.5 degree temperature increase corresponds to no permafrost at 60 degrees North latitude in a part of Siberia.
-
BillEverett at 17:33 PM on 5 March 2013‘Frozen Dirt’ and Methane … ‘We Cannot Go There’
The only statement arousing dissonance with my mental model is "much of the carbon stored in permafrost — in frozen dirt — could be released into the carbon cycle." I usually consider permafrost a subsubcompartment of the soil subcompartment of the lithosphere compartment in my four-compartment model of the carbon cycle. The permafrost carbon is already in the carbon cycle in my understanding. From my view of the carbon cycle, the point here is a change in one component of the flow of carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere. I recall some suggestions from work in Alaska that a significant part of the current surface methane releases to the atmosphere in some places in Alaska is in fact deep methane (very old ex-biomass carbon, aka fossil fuel). One of the ideas in that paper was that fracturing resulting from crustal stress changes due to melting glaciers allows the deep methane to migrate toward the surface where it may be trapped for a while under an impenetrable layer of permafrost. Local thawing of the permafrost produces holes in the permafrost layer through which the trapped old methane continues its migration to the surface.
-
brent at 15:14 PM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Dana, thanks for the most objective and unbiased account of China's pollution and emmissions I've come across. Good news indeed. It's very easy for our western governments to put out propaganda presenting the Chinese as a scapegoat for their own inaction, conveniently forgetting that we had exactly the same problems when we were industrialising - and learned that the only solution to them is state regulation. We also manage to forget that on a historical basis our emissions have been much higher.
As Rob Honeycutt points out we have in a very real sense exported a lot of our industry and emissions to China. It's almost a cliche to to warn about underestimating the Chinese, but I think their government will inevitably have to take into account the opinions of their very large, newly educated class. Just twenty years ago we coudn't have imagined their present achievements
A few weeks ago when Al Gore was in Britain promoting his new book he said only the USA has the "moral authority" to lead the world in tackling climate change. Given the strength of the US fossil fuel lobby, I think it's quite conceivable that in another twenty years we'll find that the Chinese have assumed this role.
-
dana1981 at 14:44 PM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Agnostic @8 - I think you're suffering from the same mistake as Habilus @3, which is looking at past and current conditions as opposed to the future plans discussed in this post. Doug @4 makes the important point that until we started implementing serious environmental regulations in the USA (circa 1970), we also had major pollution problems. That's where China is right now - at a turning point where pollution has become too bad to ignore, and they're now implementing important regulations to remedy the problem.
Note your link to the 350 coal power plants are planned plants. If the Chinese goverment decides not to proceed with those plans, they can scrap them. It sounds to me like that's the plan.
-
brent at 14:27 PM on 5 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
Alces @ 15, my ideology is that I had a scientific education, have long been deeply concerned about global warming and that I value SkS very highly as one of the best sources of information on the subject. I don't, however, believe it should be beyond criticism.
Tom Curitis @ 16, thanks for your courteous reply. Yes, I was being tongue in cheek, perhaps inappropriately. I'm English and have lived in this country most of my life without ever having heard of Spurgeon, and my impression is that very few people today are aware of his existence. But I quite accept that your attribution of the quotation to him is correct - it's interesting it was an old proverb even when he was writing.
I considered the matter for a couple of days before making my comment @12. My point, possibly a trivial one, is that John attributing the quotation to Churchill made me wonder if he's read Mike Mann's book. If not I thoroughly recommend it. Mann turns out to be a fine author and gives an eloquent personal account of the astonishingly unscrupulous methods contrarians use, and of the lengths to which they go to try to discredit science with ad hominem attacks.
-
JohnB6223 at 13:24 PM on 5 March 201310 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
i suggest the inclusion of this link to help explain proportion of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere from Human/nature.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/index.html
The latest increasingly popular ploy used by politicians and industrialists during media interviews to avoid directly addressing the issue of the increasing threat from accumulating CO2 from fossil fuel use is : "... yes we accept that climate change is occurring, but are not sure as to how much of that change is due to human activity".
It seems to have become the standard 'do nothing' cop out, when confronted with the undeniable physical evidence of increasing cyclone/flood/fire disasters.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:10 PM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus, I draw your attention to the recent post of an article by John Coleman on WUWT. It begins by calling the attention drawn to the fact that July 2012, and the twelve months ending in July 2012 were the hottest ever. To rebut that, he draws attention to "skeptical" studies purportedly showing a recent cooling trend in US temperatures. The problem is, in order to show the cooling trend, Coleman has to cherry pick the start year, and exclude 2012 from the analysis. If you include 2012, the trend is 0.824 C per century, ie, greater than the trend from the start of the data (0.713 C per century) which even Coleman acknowledges as showing warming.
Now, even by Feynman's inadequate definition, if you want to practise science rather than pseudo-science, you have to keep proper score of the successes and failures of your theory. Cherry picking data to avoid unpleasant consequences is not keeping proper score. Ergo, Coleman's article is an example fo pseudo-science.
My chief concern with Coleman's article if found later, where he says:
"I don’t doubt that there has been a general slow increase in atmosphere temperatures. You must understand this is a natural warming trend, a natural result of the continuing interglacial period that began with the melting of the great ice sheets 12,000 years ago. This warming trend has nothing to do with mankind’s use of fossil fuels."
and again:
"For now, however, forty years is too short-term to be hugely significant. What is does show, for now, the satellite data shows a rather steady, gradual increase in global temperatures in line with the long-term increase over the last 12,000 years. It does not support the dramatic increases predicted by the global warming advocates models."
Prior to this, he had spent some time ridiculing our knowledge of the temperature record (based on false claims), so you have to wonder how he knows what "... the long-term increase over the last 12,000 years" is. Leave that aside, however.
The key point is that the centenial trend in CONtiguous United States (CONUS) temperatures was 0.713 C per century; or 85.56 C per 12 thousand years. If that is "in line with the long-term increase over the last 12,000 years", then the means surface temperature of the CONUS 12 thousand years ago was around -74 C.
The trend from UAH over the lifetime of the satellite record is 1.39 +/- 0.73 C per century, or 166.8 +/- 87.6 C per 12 thousand years. So, if that trend is in line with the warming over the last 12,000 years, then 12,000 years ago the GMST was somewhere between -64 and -239 C.
Clearly claims that these trends are "inline" with the warming over the last 12,000 years are absurdly false. Most importantly, however, to make them (and to publish them) Coleman (Watts) must not even have bothered checking. It is crucial to science and neglected by pseudoscience, that you draw out the empirical consequences of your theories. Doing so is the sin qua non of science.
Clearly then, by any reasonable measure, Coleman's article is pseudo-science. As it is not unusually bad for the diet served up at WUWT, it is reasonable to classify WUWT as a pseudo-science site.
Given the OP, so much is on topic, but you wish to switch the discussion to Pielke Snr, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer. The problem is that all three have endorsed Watts 's site in various ways. If they are endorsing pseudo-science, what they are doing in their blogs in not science. Indeed, Judith Curry as explicitly argued in favour of cherry picking, and all three have cherry picked in the past.
Curry, in particular, has been so divorced from science as to argue:
"Is the first decade+ of the 21st century the warmest in the past 100 years (as per Peter Gleick’s argument)? Yes, but the very small positive trend is not consistent with the expectation of 0.2C/decade provided by the IPCC AR4. In terms of anticipating temperature change in the coming decades, the AGW dominated prediction of 0.2C/decade does not seem like a good bet, particularly with the prospect of reduced solar radiation."
(My emphasis)
Of course, the small twenty first century trend of 0.69 +/- 0.171 C/decade (Gistemp, from Jan 2000) is precisely consistent with a trend of 0.2 C/decade because it is included in the error bars. Even if the expected trend was outside the error bars, the data would be consistent with the trend provided only that it was outside the error bars no more than 1 in 20 years on average. That is the meaning of statistical significance.
Curry has joined a long line of falsely self named "skeptics" who argue that:
1) The temperature trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero {if you cherry pick a short enough time period}
2) {The temperature trend is statistically indistinguishable from the IPCC prediction}; Therefore
3) The temperature trend falsifies (or is inconsistent with) the IPCC prediction.
Of course, the truths in curly brackets are passed over without mention when the argument is made.
Being polite, this is not keeping track of successes and failures of their theories. That brings us back to Feynman's comments again, and it follows that from Feynman's definition, Curry and Pielke Snr, and often Roy Spencer do not practise science on their blogs, but pseudo-science.
-
scaddenp at 12:42 PM on 5 March 20132nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
There are numerous thought experiments on 2nd law argued in this thread. Here is an actual experiment for those who think the 2nd law is broken to chew on.
-
Riduna at 12:35 PM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
The problem with China is that its actions speak louder than its words: What is China doing?
It is increasing coal imports from Mongolia.
Opening new coal mines so as to increase national production.
Continuing to build 350 new coal fired power stations.
Burning over 47% of worlds coal production.
It emits over 23% of the world’s annual CO2-e. and
Lags UK in offshore wind power 10:1.
Is this taking a leading role in solving climate change - or contributing significantly to its cause?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:19 PM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Habilus... I have been to China many times. My wife is Chinese and I speak Cantonese. It is a response to exactly what you're describing that the Chinese government is implementing a carbon tax, along with a long list of other regulations.
I always find if fascnating how many people in the US think that regulations are the problem, when they only have to look toward China's development over the past 30 years to see what happens with a lack of enforced regulation.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Habilus is more than mistaken about the purpose of the Carbon Tax. No money from the carbon tax is intended for general revenue; the entire amount being used to fund compensation, reduction in emissions, and research into emissions reductions. Further, the projected shortfall represents just 7.5% of expected revenues, and just 0.08% of Australian Government expenditure.
Despite this, Habilus does his best chicken little impersonation.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:57 AM on 5 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
Alces @15, you may find this link more convenient (it is just the single sermon). The sermon is clearly dated to April 1, 1855, at which time Clemens was working on riverboats.
Your criticism of Brent, however, is not justified. He has merely expressed disinterest in the source of the quote, in a tongue in cheek (I presume) dismissal of Spurgeon. My dismissal of Clemens (Twain) was equally tongue in cheek, of course.
Why, however, he finds it interesting that Michael Mann used the quote (and misattributed it to Twain) is beyond me. The last I looked Mann was not claiming to be a literary scholar, so his acceptance of a common (though mistaken) attribution is, I would think, quite irrelevant.
-
Composer99 at 11:46 AM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Habilus:
Finding themselves in such dire straits, environmentally speaking, is the sort of thing that might - just might - have inspired Chinese policymakers, entrepreneurs & established magnates, farmers and factory workers, and so on, to make the decisions being discussed here.
Your assessment of the shortfall in carbon revenue in Australia also appears to entirely miss the point. If Australia is facing reduced carbon tax revenue, it is because Australians are reducing their carbon emissions. Last I checked, that, rather than making money, was the point of a price on carbon.
So I'm not certain that it is Dana who needs to take a trip down "reality lane" here.
-
Phil L at 11:19 AM on 5 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
Tom Curtis @13, Thanks for that link. A bit of further digging revealed that the snippet in that 1858 book is actually from a sermon preached in 1855 ... Sermon 17 in this PDF.
brent @ 14, your argument appears to be that empirical evidence (citation provided by Tom Curtis) is trumped by your ideology. Given the subject of the quote (truth), I find that somewhat ironic.
-
Doug Bostrom at 11:15 AM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Further to (away from) Habilus, here in the US we used to have a general problem characterized by something called "Love Canal." We've moved to substantially repair the defect. Would restoring Love Canal to its former filthy state and returning to the general fecklessness it represented make no difference? Would that choice be equally "good news" as was correcting the problem of Love Canal? I think not.
So the China of today is not the China of tomorrow, if the Chinese choose to plan their future differently to how they run things today. They're doing so, apparently. Unless we believe the Chinese are uniquely unable to transcend their current problems it seems that China's decisions are indeed "good news."
Moderator Response: {PW] In addition to your points, there was--was, being the operative word--the time when the Cuyahoga River caught *fire*, and we addressed that, and fixed the issue. Through regulation. -
Tom Curtis at 11:14 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclecktikus @72, first year philosophy students are taught the sobering lesson of Gettier. The one thing, we are told, that all philosopher's agreed on, was that Knowledge was justified, true belief. Then one day, the Dean looked at the publication record of Edmund Gettier, an apparently undistinguished philosopher, and told him he needed to publish or perish. Gettier responded by publishing a short article that shattered the one consensus in philosophy that had lasted since Plato. He was not asked to publish again.
The point is, there is no consensus in philosophy, and there is certainly no concensus in philosophy of science. Picking out two people whose opinion you find agreeable and asserting "concensus" without bothering to demonstrate that there is almost universal agreement among philosophers and/or scientists about that opinion is using false authority as a substitute for thought. This is particularly the case as it is not even evident that your two authorities even agree with each other.
-
Ken in Oz at 11:14 AM on 5 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Just a clarification of my thoughts and questions @95 (and noting that some of this may cross the off-topic line) - in the absence of something like continuous measurement of energy in and energy out at the top of atmosphere, it looks important to have of some kind of reference measure that can be used to communicate the ongoing change to the heat balance of the planet. One that, unlike the average surface air temperature, reflects that ongoing nature of that change with a minimum of the year to year, decade to decade variability.
The excessive focus on surface air temperatures may be an accident of history - it's what we have measured for the longest and it relates directly to how people experience weather and climate - but surface air temperature is a consequence of the complex ways that heat is distributed and moves, not a direct measure of underlying change.
The kind of graph of heat content used in this post looks to me to be a more suitable defining measure and my question, rephrased might be how much variability is there in these combined measures of heat content? When ocean heat content dips or rises, does the land, ice and atmosphere heat content rise or dip to reflect that it's a change of energy distribution rather than of change in the top of atmosphere energy in/out balance? Or, put another way, how short a period to get a statistically significant trend? Less than 5 years?
-
Tom Curtis at 11:02 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Tom Dayton @73, Martin Gardner's explanation of the problem with Popper is simply wrong. Specifically, Popper asserted that a certain type empirical statement haveing the logical structure (x)Px ("For all things, x, x has the property P") are not emperically verifiable, but are falifiable. He further pointed out that scientific laws have that logical structure. It is essential to Popper's epistemology that statemenst have the logical form ∃(x)Px (There exists at least on x, such that x has the property P) are verifiable (but not falsifiable). It is by verifying logically particular statements that we falsify logically universal statements. Clearly Dayton's counter example to the claim that scientists seek to falsify logically universal statements (scientific laws) is a logically particular statement (∃(x)(Wx & Mx) where Wx means (x is water) and Mx means (x is on the surface of Mars); ie, a statement of exactly the form that Popper asserts is verifiable, and that must be verifiable for Popper's theory to be valid.
-
Habilus at 10:51 AM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Have you ever been to China? Seen the chocolate colored water in the rivers? Breathed the viscous air? I have, plenty. There ain't no good news there.
"Australia's carbon tax is faring well" Are you kidding me? Have you seen the price of 'carbon' lately? "Carbon" markets are collapsing and Austrailia is counting heavily on those same 'carbon' taxes to make revenue goals. They aren't going to make it.
Time to step away from the keyboard and take a trip down reality lane here.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:41 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus... I think rejecting the nomination is more of a way of pointing out the fact that the system for selecting the winner is deeply flawed and being gamed. It actually gives the bloggies some assemblence of credibility to have SkS as a nominee in the category.
By requesting to be removed SkS clearly wins by pointing out that nearly every other nominee is there because Anthony Watts requested his readers go nominate WUWT and other similar blogs. It makes the category completely absurd when a very broad category like "science and technology" is dominated by the very narrow category of climate science denial.
-
Daniel Bailey at 10:25 AM on 5 March 2013‘Frozen Dirt’ and Methane … ‘We Cannot Go There’
Sadly, we don't. Those emissions will continue, just as surely as there is an energy imbalance at the TOA. Polar amplification will continue to cause more warming of the permafrost with yet more attendant releases of CO2 and CH4.
At least the Kraken does not yet wake... -
Tom Dayton at 10:19 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eclectikus, the most concise explanation of the problems with Popper was written by Martin Gardner. But if you want longer explanations, there are plenty out there.
-
Eclectikus at 08:36 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Bill, Feynman and Popper might be (and they are, indeed) two of the greater thinkers or twenty century. There is consensus.
-
Eclectikus at 08:26 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Nope, thanks Sphoerica, but I don't need any guidance to sift out what should I or should not I read, 17 years as geophysicist help me to form my own opinion based on what I read, here and there.
And yes, I think that SkS and the IPCC reports are based on the actual/mainstream science, while sites like WUWT clearly are not. Besides, I'm sure that that is healthy, indispensable, and good for everyone interested in Science in general, and in Climatology in particular. Is my opinion.
-
scaddenp at 08:14 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
The biggist thing wrong with Eklectikis argument is that the statemment "they are no susceptiuble of falsability, and fail to fulfill the Scientific Method. " is simply wrong. I think itt stems from misunderstanding the nature of models and predictions within climate science.
-
bill4344 at 08:03 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
The thing about Eklectikis' 'argument' is that Homeopaths could use it to support themselves in their brave struggle against the overwhelming might of the narrow-minded and hide-bound Scientific Establishment, Man!
Personally I think Feynman is seriously over-rated, as is Popper, that other most-likely candidate to be adduced as an authority by the 'see, a consensus is automatically wrong, so an overwhelming consensus must be overwhelmingly wrong!' brigade.
Occam's Razor remains a far more important principle than the hypothesized opinions of intellectual 'rock stars'.
This 'Feynman Process' also reminds me of the Neocon Right's continual revisionist attempts to make Orwell one of their own...
-
Ken in Oz at 07:48 AM on 5 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Thanks Dana. It looks to me that variability even year to year is absent - smoothed data or is the heat gain actually approaching continuous? To my mind this or similar graphs ought to be amongst the first referred to whenever a climate scientist is asked whether warming has paused, slowed or is not statistically signifant over the past x no. of years. Even before referring to Foster and Rahmstorf's adjusted temperature - or the visually compelling variation used by Kevin C www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html
-
Bob Lacatena at 07:46 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Eklectikis,
You don't appear to understand the science well enough to make the statements that you are making. I'd suggest you invest a lot more time in studying the actual science, and a lot less time reading WUWT, Curry, Spencer and Pielke, who don't actually communicate the science, but instead spend all of their time commenting on the politics and the 'debate' and sowing doubt in the science. You don't need opinions, you need facts.
I would also point out that Skeptical Science does not spread the official position coming from the IPCC. It merely communicates the science itself. Occassionaly, the site quotes the IPCC Assessment Reports, but more often than not, SkS directly presents and references actual scientific studies (which are also the basis of the IPCC reports).
Or are you simply trying to say that SkS and the IPCC reports are based on the actual science, while sites like WUWT clearly are not?
-
Andy Skuce at 06:29 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
shoyemore @65
That story from Feynman, which I hadn't heard before, is a nice counterpoint to Ernest Rutherford's popular quote that a scientific discovery has no merit unless you can explain it to a barmaid.
Since Eli brought up Groucho, my favourite quip is: "Why, this is so simple a five-year-old child could understand it! [aside] Go find me a five-year-old child; I can't make heads or tails of it.".
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:23 AM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
I've said many times, much of China's current energy consuption is the direct result of production of goods for western markets. So, on a very real level, a portion of China's emissions are actually our emissions.
I'm hearing a lot of talk on both sides of the Pacific about manufacturing moving back to the US, so that energy consumption for manufacturered goods is headed back this direction. And I think that's a good thing.
-
Dan Olner at 03:48 AM on 5 March 2013China Takes a Leading Role in Solving Climate Change
Phew, actually quite heartening - thank you!
-
Eclectikus at 03:32 AM on 5 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Hi shoyemore.
I'm reasonably sure that Feynman would not support creationism, aether... Also reasonably (judging by his pragmatism, his taste for empirical verification of theories, and their detachment from the powers that be) I think that would be pretty critical of the IPCC, and specifically with the climate projections to, say, one hundred years from now... is this that bad?. But we have no idea, and we never will. Anyway, I brought Feynmann only to ilustrate the "no pejorative" meaning of the word pseudoscience in that context, that's all.
-
brent at 18:42 PM on 4 March 2013Reality Drop - using social media to rapidly respond to climate misinformation
Tom Curtis @ 13, you must excuse my ignorance as to what's hot and what's not in Baptist circles. But I think the original reason for my interest in this isn't significantly altered.
-
shoyemore at 18:14 PM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Apologies mispelling Feynman as Feynmann - mixup with Gell-Mann. They are no relation!
One story about Feynman illustrates his approach to science. After his Nobel Prize was announced, a taxi-driver recognised him.
"Hey, what did you get the Prize for?" ask the driver
"Bud, if I could explain it to you before the end of the journey, then it would not have been worth a Nobel Prize" answered Feynman.
It seems a strange attitude for someone who was (arguably) the greatest public lecturer on science ever. But he did not believe in Idiot Guides, and it is a questionable assumption that he would have taken to the world of science blogging and "Post-Normal" science that deniers try to push.
-
shoyemore at 16:48 PM on 4 March 2013Why SkS withdrew from the Bloggies
Ecklecktius,
I notice deniers fall over themselves trying to claim trying to claim Richard Feynmann as a talisman. Feynmann was a sardonic, intellectually tough individual who could flirt with Californian wackiness and keep his science straight. Somehow, I do not see him falling for Tallbloke's espousal of the luminiferous aether or Dr Roy Spencer's Creationism and membership of the Cornwall Alliance. Nor do I see him buying into the conspiracy theories purveyed on WUWT or Jo Nova.
Feynmann was rather conservative and elitest when it came to science. "Post-Normal science" would have been alient to him. He believed in following observations rigorously, inter-scientist discussion and peer-review. I think he would have joined his friend, fellow-Nobelist, colleague and rival Professor Murray Gell-Mann in speaking up for the traducing and betrayal of science by both fringe figures and Establishment politicians.
-
rockytom at 16:33 PM on 4 March 2013‘Frozen Dirt’ and Methane … ‘We Cannot Go There’
How do we stop the methane and carbon dioxide that is already escaping from permafrost areas, bubbling up from these pristine lakes and the invisible releases from other areas of permafrost?
-
chriskoz at 16:14 PM on 4 March 2013‘Frozen Dirt’ and Methane … ‘We Cannot Go There’
More detailed press release of the most interesting detail of this video: 1.5C being the "tipping point" of the large PF melt (based on the stalactites growth radioactive dating by Anton Vaks) can be found here in Oxford Uni press in Science 21 Feb 2013, DOI: 10.1126/science.1228729if you have an access.
Interesting study worth close attention. Confirms Jim Hnasen's opinion that "danegerous" level of global warming is not beyond 2 degrees: we should limit it to 1 degree to avoid the "danger".
-
dana1981 at 15:55 PM on 4 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Ken @92 - our data are based entirely on measurements. Ocean heat content was measured by expendable bathythermographs before the ARGO network was built. The data are sparser in the past, particularly for the deeper ocean layers, but the data exist nonetheless.
-
Philip Shehan at 15:28 PM on 4 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
Tom Curtis: In your reply to my reference to Lord Monckton's use of the Australian's version of Pachuari's views, you comment on "skeptics" silence on Monckton's views.
He is indeed too rich for some "skeptics" liking, including Australian Senator Barnaby Joyce and conservative columnist Janet Albrechtsen:
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, the eccentric UK climate sceptic, is proving too hot for some of Australia’s most prominent climate sceptics — including Barnaby Joyce.
Joyce, who famously said that climate change sceptics were being treated like holocaust deniers and likened environmental campaigners to eco-Nazis, believes Monckton is on the fringe of the debate and unhelpful to those who question human induced climate change...
On Wednesday conservative columnist Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian wrote that Monckton was an extremist in his language and is hurting the cause of those who want to ask hard questions of the science.
-
Stephen Leahy at 12:30 PM on 4 March 2013‘Frozen Dirt’ and Methane … ‘We Cannot Go There’
Schaefer has said that permafrost tipping pt might be only 15 years from now. That was before some new research in Feb this year showing that permafrost carbon exposed to sunlight turns into CO2 40% faster. All of which is to say: time to wound down the use of fossil fuels.
-
Stephen Leahy at 12:18 PM on 4 March 2013Living in Denial in Canada
Nice work Andy. Public surveys show that +80% of Canadians want their environment protected EVEN if it slows economic growth or costs them money. (Environics Research pdf)
I wonder if denial is truly at heart of the matter or simply lack of awareness that Canada is fouling its own nest and profitting from what might one day be known as 'the crime of the century'?
-
Eternal Consumption Engine at 11:50 AM on 4 March 20132013 Arctic Sea Ice Extent Prediction
First posting on this website. Greetings to all.
My estimate for 2013 minimum ice volume is 2221 km^3 based on the steepening trend seen in the last 6 years of the PIOMAS graph. If assymetric error margins are permitted, I will say +2500/-500 km^3 based on 2500 being roughly the amount of lumpiness in that section of the graph and -500 on an unsubstantiated hunch about the most northerly part of the ice sheet being the hardest to melt.
Based on the earlier mention that research crews are now having to 'hunt' for ice thickness of 2m and taking that as a crude average thickness, my prediction for ice extent works out to 1,110,600 km^2, or a radius of ~595 km, if it were perfectly centered on the pole (c.f. ~700km from north coast of Greenland to the pole).
Prev 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 Next
