Recent Comments

Prev  968  969  970  971  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  979  980  981  982  983  Next

Comments 48751 to 48800:

48751. shoyemore at 19:42 PM on 9 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       I often get the "climatology is not a mature science" trope from fake-sceptics, and posts like this are important for rebutting it.

       If I could assign a moment when climaet science became "mature", it would be Manabe & Wetherald's 1967 model of the Earth's climate, the first radiative-convective model. Before that, you have individual giants like Arrhenius, Plass and Keeling but after the 1960s, everything starts to coalesce in theory and methodologies. Stephen Schneider's memoir Science as a Contact Sport  is an excellent personal view of subsequent history.

       To draw an analogy, while Arrhenius was investigating CO2, Henri Becquerel was investigating radioactivity. Only 40 to 50 years or so separated Becquerel (and other giants like Rutherford) from the discovery of nuclear fission and the atomic bomb, which can be looked upon as moment nuclear physics matured.

       Climate science took a bit longer, but not inordinately so.

48752. Doug Hutcheson at 17:10 PM on 9 February 2013
       Introducing the History of Climate Change Science
       

       The graphic showing events along the historical time-line of understanding AGW, will be a valuable resource to point to when rebutting the contrarian 'climate science is immature' meme. Nice work.

48753. Doug Hutcheson at 16:56 PM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       It's time for the USA to take a climate leadership role

       What a difference it would make, if only they would exercise the global leadership they are so fond of talking about.

48754. JasonB at 13:48 PM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       scaddenp is correct. Most of the historical changes that have introduced inhomogeneities into the temperature record have tended to cause recorded temperatures to suddenly go down. Station moves from built-up locations to more rural locations (e.g. Darwin, Port Hedland); switching to Stephenson screens; changing Time of Observation; changing the method sea surface temperatures were recorded after WWII; heck, in the very earliest part of the Central England Temperature record, the temperatures are not comparable because the thermometers were placed inside to avoid having to go out in the cold to read them!

       So we should expect corrections to often be increasing recent temperatures or decreasing older temperatues as we become more able to isolate and correct for various effects.

       However, suppose that in spite of the facts:

       1. That these effects have actually been measured in order to create formulas to correct for them.
       2. That GISS has been releasing all source code and data for years, and publishing all algorithms in the peer-reviewed literature for decades, and independent groups have replicated their results, and not one single fake sceptic has ever published a criticism of any of the algorithms used.
       3. That using raw data, and even tiny subsets of the raw data, gives almost identical results.

       In spite of all those facts, you just don't trust any form of correction? Not because you can actually identify anything wrong in all that publicly-available information, but just because your gut tells you it must be so?

       Well, in that case you can completely avoid all corrections by simply detecting when a discontinuity in a temperature station's record occurs, and then simply break the record in two at that point. Pretend it's actually two completely different records, and make no effort to quantify the effect of the discontinuity so that you can correct for it.

       What do you get then? Why, BEST of course!

       And guess which land-only temperature series has the highest trend?

48755. John Brookes at 13:08 PM on 9 February 2013
       For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
       

       fydijkstra makes a very good point.  Each side in this issue sees the other as denying reality.  Of course we know that is just projection on their part :-)

       But its now impossible for "skeptics" to change their minds.  When you start from the position that scientists are lying and have falsified the temperature record, then no amount of information (just more lies) will change your mind.

       Scientists just need to keep trying to do the best they can to further our understanding of climate.  And their peers need to keep being tough on them, keeping them honest.

       The "skeptics" can be ignored.

48756. scaddenp at 12:06 PM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       I think the expectation that adjustments should be even is also misplaced. If you want to compare temperature measurements mad today with measurement taken in the morning, against same station but temperature done in afternoon, then you have to move past temperature down. Its a change of practise. Likewise, comparing modern screened electronic thermometer against past unscreened and glass thermometer also require past to be adjusted down.

       I would certainly not expect any of the temperature records to be beyond improvement. Its a case of methodology advancement and available funding. What is also clear though is that you cant blame GW on adjustments.

48757. Tony O at 11:32 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       If we are to have a chance of saving any sort of world that we can live in, then we need to stop all these new projects. If we fail to stop the XL pipeline shipping this dirtiest of oils to the world then we are in very deep trouble.

       To those campaining and demonstrating I salute you.

48758. Tom Curtis at 08:41 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin @253 claims:

       " ...a 10% adjustment is rather large, considerring everyone "thought" the data was correct before the adjustment."

       In fact, if you look at the SkS trend Calculator you will see that the trend for Gistemp is 0.064 C per decade +/- 0.007 C per decade (11%).  So his point is that the temperture record is not as accurate as advertized because a change smaller than the advertized accuracy has been made.

       Even more bizzare is claim that:

       "I don't have enough info regarding the algorithm to say anything more about it, except the general observation, again, that the chances of all the adjustments being on "the correct side of the belief paradine" can't be 100%"

       It has been already established that the change in gistemp is primarilly because of changes in the Global Historical Climate Network, whose algorithim Kevin claims ignorance of.  Here are the actual adjustments from raw data made by that algorithm:

       

       (Note: Darwin is highlighted because it comes from a discussion of a frequent denier cherry pick  used to suggest the GHCN adjustments are wrong.)

       The key point for this discussion is that the adjustments are not 99% in one direction.  They are very close to being 50/50.  In another discussion of adjustment bias, it was found that the mean adjustment of 0.017 degrees C/decade.  This data is for the GHCNv2 rather than v3, but no doubt the statistics of the later will be similar.

48759. Ken in Oz at 06:56 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       I have to agree with the author - there is a fundamental disconnect between commercial decision making and science based - or even common sense based - understanding of the interconnectedness of people and the environment. Commercial decision making is about costs, competitiveness and profitability. There are legal obligations but limited ethical ones. There is no innate ethical framework there that requires deferring to science based reality. Climate policy, assessed in light of the commercial implications, is seen as imposing a burden of costs and regulations via government policy. Government policy is something seen as amenable to influence using familiar tools - lobbying, tankthink, PR and advertising, mostly focusing on and exacerbating economic hopes and fears. There is no requirement to defer to science or even to be fair minded or even truthful in the use of those tools of influence. In many respects what they are doing is no more than would be expected of them. But our elected representatives and community's leaders work within a framework where science based reality and truthfulness about it should not be dismissed or ignored. Commerce is doing what commerce does, but politics is letting us down. Politicians who act as the political voices of commerce, above the wider, longer term interests of their constituents have given opposition to action on climate a respectability and legitimacy it otherwise wouldn't have.

48760. tlitb1 at 06:36 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       BTW. To the some who question the benefit of cities may I suggest some resource material?

        

       http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16819-city-dwellers-harm-climate-less.html http://www.scientificamerican.com/cities/

48761. tlitb1 at 06:29 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       @John Mason at 12:47 PM on 8 February, 2013

       Thanks for the reply.

       "I didn't say it was deliberate, did I?"

       I inferred you had in mind a deliberate intent specifically from the “...which is why [*it*] has promoted...” in the segment I quoted.

       I can understand speaking of observed large scale movements, tendencies, and even non-sentient chemical reactions in an analogous way to intention, but I always want to find out more, and question, when the author who uses them seems only to move within that analogous thinking without surfacing too often as you do to me.

       I want to know what you think when you say things like, as in your reply to me, ...

       "...but neither do they seem to have much concern that they are in the business of doing so..."

       "...that conscience-related bit has fallen by the wayside..."

       You seem to be clearly talking about motivations, or absence of good ones, in perceived powerful entities that you have a contrary position to.

       If that entity is best described as the "corporate world", then I would say that the "corporate world" is something that would more likely follow the dread "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. 

       i.e. be doing, or thinking, nothing. ;)

       i tseems to me that the corporate world is something that allows the luxury of detaching from modern society and speculating about what it is to be “disconnected”.

       Is that even a valid concept?

       The concept of “disconnect” implies there was previously a “connection” whereas I suggest if you were rather specifically arguing for a new method of connection then that would have greater resonance.

       I currently think that large scale economies and the “corporate world” have offered large parts of modern humanity the ability to find the time to make considerations of how best to “connect” to whatever they want to choose to connect to ;)

48762. KR at 06:11 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Composer99 - Excellent catch on the False Dichotomy. 

       Kevin - You have (incorrectly) posed the question of accuracy as binary; that if current data is accurate then previous data cannot be accurate, cannot be trusted, and you then attempted to use that as a Reductio ad Absurdum argument against corrections.

       That is simply wrong.

       The real state of affairs is a continuum:

       • Estimates pre-2007 were and are accurate, within some uncertainties.
       • Current estimates are more accurate, with fewer uncertainties.

       Again, if you disagree with any particular correction(s), you are going to have to present data demonstrating an issue with that. Not logical fallacies and arm-waving, which is all you have presented to date.

48763. Andy Skuce at 05:50 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin@10

       First, did you read the paragraph that I highlighted? It deals with the issues you raise.

       Second, I can't speak for Dana, but I am against any new hydrocarbon infrastructure that does not pay for the negative externalities that it causes, including new oil and gas pipelines. Every new capital investment in an energy project tends to lock in that infrastrucure for the project lifecycle, since the capital is a sunk cost. We can't afford to keep building the infrastructure that will increase carbon emissions over decades. This argument justifies Dana's calculations of the total, well-to-wheels impact of Keystone XL.

       See this post and the figure below

       

48764. dana1981 at 05:49 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       JoeT - I'm not sure where Pierrehumbert got his figure from, but I saw the XL 830,000 barrel per day maximum capacity in several places, including the State Dept EIS.  The existing Keystone pipeline has around a 500,000 gallon per day capacity, so perhaps Pierrehumbert accidentally cited that number instead of the value for XL.

       Also Kevin, I'm a he, not a she.

48765. JoeT at 05:41 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Excellent summary Dana, thanks very much. It always takes me quite some time to go through all your references. I appreciate the considerable amount of time and effort it takes to synthesize all the reports you go through.

       Just a quick question. Just a few weeks ago I read the Pierrehumbert article on realclimate that you linked to with the Andrew Leach reference. Aside from the fact that he measures tonnes of C and you do tonnes of CO2 (a factor of 3.67), your numbers are 2.3 higher than his. He's got 500,000 barrels/day to your 830,000 and 0.42 tonnes CO2/barrel to your 0.58. What accounts for the difference? Thanks.

48766. dana1981 at 05:37 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin @9, see Andy @8.  Gold star to Andy.

48767. JoeT at 05:36 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Excellent summary Dana, thanks very much. It always takes me quite some time to go through all your references. I appreciate the considerable amount of time and effort it takes to synthesize all the reports you go through.

       Just a quick question. Just a few weeks ago I read the Pierrehumbert article on realclimate that you linked to with the Andrew Leach reference. Aside from the fact that he measures tonnes of C and you do tonnes of CO2 (a factor of 3.67), your numbers are 2.3 higher than his. He's got 500,000 barrels/day to your 830,000 and 0.42 tonnes CO2/barrel to your 0.58. What accounts for the difference? Thanks.

48768. Composer99 at 05:36 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin:

       These adjustments were made in 2008. This thread was started in 2007. Therefore there was confidence that these were accurate before they were. That is my point.

       Unfortunately, your point appears to rest on a false dichotomy: that data are either accurate or they are not. As Bob Loblaw noted, data are actually on a continuum of more or less accurate and there is almost always room for improvement. If the accuracy of GISTemp improved due to the 2008 adjustments, it does not follow, of necessity, that it was not accurate before, only that it was less accurate.

       I do not have a priori reason to expect that, just logic, common sense, and probability.

       A new algorithm is used that can find abnormalities better. It stands to reason, that the probability of finding data that "needs corrective action" only on "one side of the argument" would be rather small.

       This is an argument from personal incredulity, not an appeal to "logic", "common sense", or "probability". In addition, with regards to treating the data there are no "sides of the argument". There are only identifiable, quantifiable uncertainties & biases (of the methodological/numerical kind, not the political kind) in the data and adjustments to correct them.

       It is just a thought provoking exercise. Do you really believe that all those adjustments were needed, but that there was only the one adjustment the other way? I just read a piece by Dr. Sanford (Union Concerned Scientists) the other week where he was arguing that due to the fact that since there were MORE high temp records than low temp records lately, that this proved AGW theory. That level was something like 75-25, not 99-1.

       Are those Dr Sanford's exact words? Is there a link? Based on what you have written it appears Dr Sanford noted that high temperature records exceeded low temperature records in the given timeframe by a ratio of 3:1. How is this pertinent? Insofar as you are tying this back to a ratio of adjustments performed on NASA GISS, this appears to be a non sequitur.

       How reliable is the data. I am not naive to believe it can ever be 100% accurate, nor does it have to be. Again, this thread started in 2007, saying how reliable that data was, then there is a correction that adjusts the data in such a way as to increase the warming trend by 10% in 2008, so how reliable was it in 2007?

       That's all I'm asking.

       The false dichotomy identified at the start remains in play here. Just because the data was made more accurate/more reliable in 2008 does not mean it wasn't accurate or reliable at all in 2007. It just means it was not as accurate. If you suspect otherwise, can you provide some sort of calculation or other analysis to support your suspicion (or a link to someone else doing so)?

48769. Andy Skuce at 05:33 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       Trevor_S@19

       while Andy seems to think we can all live in cities and install a few solar panels and spinning windmill blades

       I don't think I quite said that.

       I have been influenced by Stewart Brand's take on the environmental advantages  of most of us living in dense cities (ie, not suburban sprawl). This report from the Brookings Institute has some numbers and this Guardian article comments on the generally smaller carbon footprints of urban versus rural dwellers.

48770. Doug Bostrom at 05:22 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin:  ...only the difference between this and "normal" oil should be used, as this oil would replace other oil used, not be in addition to.

       "This" oil is relatively expensive to produce compared to preferred reservoirs, "preferred" including those with fairly horrendous geopolitical or technical challenges. If for instance the Arctic were to produce a true Middle East or Gulf of Mexico elephant play, the tar sands bubble would go "pop" instantaneously, only to be reinflated when the hypothetical Arctic bounty was exhausted. Willingness to capitalize the tar sand project on the grand scale of Keystone is simply an indication of the confidence fossil fuel firms have in our long term inability to pick and choose between reservoirs. 

       The very existence of Keystone says your argument is plainly wrong. 

       Rather than being a weirdly unusual and impossible economic choice, the tar sands project confirms our inclination (or rather desperate need because, let's face it,  we're addicted)  to burn -all- available hydrocarbons, not substitute something more expensive for what can be obtained more cheaply elsewhere. 

48771. Kevin8233 at 05:15 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       She is objecting to the Tar Sands XL Pipeline.  She goes on to show how Tar Sands oil is worse (on a CO2 basis) than normal oil.  So far so good.  As I stated above, if she was objecting to any oil pipeline, her methodology is fine.  She is however, trying to show why the Tar Sands Oil pipeline is objectionable, specifically, because it is Tar Sands Oil.  That is why only the difference matters.  Again, as stated earlier, the oil from this pipeline will replace oil from some other source.  If this pipeline were to be constructed so as to support some new, dedicated new oil consumption enterprise, her logic again would be fine.  This oil will replace some other oil that is more expensive.  So if she wants to include the total, then she must subtract the oil CO2 equivalents that are replaced, which is essentially what I did, only earlier.

48772. Andy Skuce at 05:06 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin @7

       Dana also mentioned the incremental effect of burning bitument versus regular crude oil in this paragraph.

       Additionally, as Andrew Leach notes, this 7 billion metric ton estimate is in an ideal world where the oil transported by Keystone XL would not otherwise be either shipped elsewhere or replaced with some other source.  The EPA has estimated that the "extra" emissions associated with Keystone XL as compared to a no-Keystone XL world with realistic assumptions is in the range of 1 billion metric tons of CO2 over 50 years.  If these assumptions are correct, constructing Keystone XL only represents closer to 0.2% of our carbon budget.

       Which is what I guess you were after. 

       
       

48773. KR at 04:49 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin - If you disagree with any of the corrections to the data, positive or negative in how they affect trends, you are going to have to state why that correction might be invalid! 

       You have not done so. 

       All you have done is express multiple fallacies: Argumented ad Consequentiam fallacy, an appeal to consequences, without addressing the truth or falsity of the corrections themselves (a correction was upward, therefore it must be wrong), the Common Sense fallacy, and an Argument from Personal Astonishment. I'm afraid none of those hold up against actual data. 

       As to pre-2007, our estimations improve all the time as new data comes in, as new relationships are identified. By your logic we should still be using Ptolemaic spheres...

        

48774. Dikran Marsupial at 04:45 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin wrote "These adjustments were made in 2008.  This thread was started in 2007.  Therefore there was confidence that these were accurate before they were.  That is my point."

       If that is your point, you are labouring under a misaprehension. Most SkS regulars are well aware of the fact that there are homogenisation issues with the data, and that there will continue to be adjustments as the science improves.  That is the nature of science.  However that does not mean that the data are unreliable, even with the adjustments, the uncertainties are small enough to be confident of the conclusions being drawn on the basis of those data.

       Kevin wrote "Again, this thread started in 2007, saying how reliable that data was, then there is a correction that adjusts the data in such a way as to increase the warming trend by 10% in 2008, so how reliable was it in 2007?

       That's all I'm asking."

       However, Kevin earlier wrote "If the data is/was so accurate, why does Hansen keep changing it?  And why are ALL changes in the direction that support his belief?  You would think that at least some "mistakes" were made in the other direction, no?  How much cooler are the 30's going to get?"

       It seems to me that your purpose has changed somewhat!

       If you want to ask scientific questions, then ask them, rather than imply scientists have been disingenuous.  All that achieves is to create a combative atmosphere that rarely helps much.

48775. Composer99 at 04:41 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin:

       Your criticism of Dana's logic & calculations appears to rest on your assumption that:

       Instead of calculating the total quantity of CO2 equivalents generated by this [the ongoing extraction of fossil fuels from Alberta tar sands], only the difference between this and "normal" oil should be used, as this oil would replace other oil used, not be in addition to. [Emphasis mine.]

       What is your justification for this assumption?

48776. Kevin8233 at 04:29 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin, if everybody thought the data were right before the adjustment they would have stopped working on it and the adjustment would not have been made. The adjustment was made precisely because of the research of climatologists who work to understand the limitations of the data.

       These adjustments were made in 2008.  This thread was started in 2007.  Therefore there was confidence that these were accurate before they were.  That is my point.

        

       There is no a priori reason to expect that adjustments to NASA GISS historical temperature data must be "fair and balanced". Only that they (a) address identifiable problems with the data and (b) are methodologically sound.

       You are correct.  I do not have a priori reason to expect that, just logic, common sense, and probability. 

       A new algorithm is used that can find abnormalities better.  It stands to reason, that the probability of finding data that "needs corrective action" only on "one side of the argument" would be rather small.

       It is just a thought provoking exercise.  Do you really believe that all those adjustments were needed, but that there was only the one adjustment the other way?  I just read a piece by Dr. Sanford (Union Concerned Scientists) the other week where he was arguing that due to the fact that since there were MORE high temp records than low temp records lately, that this proved AGW theory.  That level was something like 75-25, not 99-1.

        

       You seem to be falling into the "if we don't know everything, we know nothing" mindset where certain individuals in the fake skeptic camp play the uncertainty monster.

       This is the nature of the thread here.  How reliable is the data.  I am not naive to believe it can ever be 100% accurate, nor does it have to be.  Again, this thread started in 2007, saying how reliable that data was, then there is a correction that adjusts the data in such a way as to increase the warming trend by 10% in 2008, so how reliable was it in 2007?

       That's all I'm asking.

48777. John Mason at 04:25 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       Interesting - a broad church there, so to speak. Personally I come at this from an observational, science-based position, but I do think people of almost all persuasions are increasingly recognising that something has gone badly wrong. I know some very conservative people, politically-speaking, who also hold this view and are searching for answers. The simplistic 'left versus right' argument that some tend to put forward looks even weaker in the light of your above post.

       It doesn't matter, senso stricto, whether the world was created or came into being via geological processes (the evidence tells me the second one). We can discuss that at our leisure after solving the big problem of our time - making sure it still feeds, waters and oxygenates us into the long future, and to do that the climate needs to be relatively stable.

48778. Kevin8233 at 03:58 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Kevin - please read the "What is the Potential Climate Impact of Keystone XL?" section more carefully.

       My statement stands.  You calculated the TOTAL potential impact, and I am stating that that is illogical.  It is the "above and beyond" normal oil that is important to the issue of whether or not to proceed with the XL.  Your logic would argue against ANY oil pipeline, not tar sands pipeline.

        

48779. numerobis at 03:35 AM on 9 February 2013
       WYSIWYG Comments Feature
       

       On iOS/safari, the edit box does not scroll when you go back to edit a post, sometimes.  But not consistently (I'm failing to reproduce right now).  It also seems to interact poorly with the autocorrect: it's offering corrections for words I deleted.

       I've noticed the same with some bb forums.

       An option to have a dumb editor for "smart"phones and other dumb browsers would be ideal.

48780. John Hartz at 03:33 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       The Forward on Climate rally scheduled for Sunday, Feb 17 in Washington, DC is being sponsored by more than 100 environmental and progressive organizations in the US and Canada. To access a complete list of the sponsoring organizations, click here.

48781. numerobis at 03:27 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       "There is no reason to do it"

       There are many very good reasons to exploit tar sands.  The work is bringing very good jobs to some perfectly nice human beings, and it provides energy at a cheaper short-term cost for everyone.  It brings in large revenues to the relevant branches of government, who can then run social programs with only light tax burdens on the general population.  And, of course, it brings huge profits to the companies involved.

       Long term they are a disaster, of course.

48782. saileshrao at 02:52 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       From the Durban addendum on the Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change presented to Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC in Durban, Nov. 2011:
       
       "While Climate Change is a symptom, a fever that our Earth has contracted, the underlying disease is the disconnection from creation that plagues human societies throughout our world. We, the undersigned, pledge to heal this disconnection by promoting and exemplifying compassion for all creation in all our actions."
       
       Signed:
       Archbishop Desmond Tutu
       Ela Gandhi, Honorary President of WCRP (granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi)
       Bishop Geoff Davies, Executive Director of South African Faith Communities' Environment Institute (SAFCEI)
       Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, Catholic Church and Chair of KwaZulu Natal Inter Religious Council (KZN IRC)
       Dr. Mustafa Ali, Secretary General of African Council of Religious Leaders
       Bishop Michael Vorster, Methodist Church of Southern Africa, Natal
       Rev. Jenny Sprong, Methodist Church of Southern Africa
       Rev. Emmanuel Gabriel, Methodist Church of Southern Africa
       Stewart Kilburn, HIV 911
       Saydoon Sayed, World Council on Religions for Peace (WCRP) Coordinator, Secretary of KZN IRC
       Rev. Sue Britton, Anglican Church of South Africa
       Rabbi Hillel Avidan, South African Union of Progressive Judaism
       Professor Hoosen Vawda, Nelson Medical School
       Cannon Desmond Lambrechts, National Religious Association for Social Development
       Dr. Sylvia Kaye, Secretary of Bahai Faith of South Africa
       Dhunluxmi Desai, KZN IRC and Southern African Hindu Maha Sabha
       Sr. Agnes Grasboeck, Sisters of Mariannhill/ WCRP
       Jerald Vedan, Buddhist Representative for Inter Religious Council
       Pundit Raj Bharat, Atman Universal Movement and WCRP
       Martina Grasboeck
       Fauzia Shaikh
       Sister Usha Jeevan, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
       Seelan Moodliar, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
       Isaac Wittmann, Young Adults in Global Mission - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
       Kristin Opalinski, Lutheran Communion in Southern Africa
       Rev. Lumka Sigaba, Methodist Church of Southern Africa
       Jaine Rao, Climate Healers
       Dr. Sailesh Rao, Climate Healers
       Mark Naicker, Catholic Youth
       Stuart Scott, Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change
       Paddy Meskin, President WCRP South Africa / Secretariat for KZN IRC
       Moulana Abdullah, Inter Religious Council on Peace - Tanzania
       Mahomed Yussuf, Sunni Jumait
       Maulana Mahomed Ebrahim, Sunni Jamait Ulama
       Priscilla McDougal, United Church of Christ
       Shamim David, Inter Religious Council of Zambia
       Mantanta Wasim, Inter Religious Council of Zambia
       Sheikh Idrisa Mtembu, Muslim Association of Malawi
       Sheikh Saleem Banda, World Assembly of Muslim Youth
       Adam Makwinda, World Assembly of Muslim Youth
       Fred Kruger, National Religious Coalition on Creation Care

        

48783. Bob Loblaw at 02:48 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin: "considerring everyone "thought" the data was correct before the adjustment."

       "Correct" is not a binary choice (yes, no) in science. No data are perfect. They don't have to be perfect in order to be useful. Even when they are already good enough to be useful, it is possible to get greater utility by improving the analysis.

       You seem to be falling into the "if we don't know everything, we know nothing" mindset where certain individuals in the fake skeptic camp play the uncertainty monster. If you waited until your knoweldge was perfect before doing anything, you wouldn't even be able to get out of bed in the morning.

48784. KR at 02:48 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin - Regarding your complaints on adjustments, I'll just restate something I posted on one of the "skeptic" blogs on those very adjustments:

       It could be argued that it’s better to look at raw temperature data than data with these various adjustments for known biases. It could also be argued that it’s worth not cleaning the dust and oil off the lenses of your telescope when looking at the stars. I consider these statements roughly equivalent, and (IMO) would have to disagree.

       If you don't agree with adjustments for various biases, you're going to have to address them directly - regarding the particular adjustment, with support for your opinion - before such criticism can be taken seriously. 

       Otherwise, such complaints are just arm-waving. 

48785. Composer99 at 02:43 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin:

       IMO your point is discounted because you have presented no evidence to support it. Only suspicions based on your perception of the adjustments and a graph from Climate4You.

       There is no a priori reason to expect that adjustments to NASA GISS historical temperature data must be "fair and balanced". Only that they (a) address identifiable problems with the data and (b) are methodologically sound.

       If you have evidence that one or both of (a) or (b) is not the case, or can link to someone else who does, then by all means bring it to the attention of the pros here (and even better, bring it to NASA's attention).

       But you are going to need more than your personal suspicions as expressed in:

       If the data is/was so accurate, why does Hansen keep changing it? And why are ALL changes in the direction that support his belief? You would think that at least some "mistakes" were made in the other direction, no?

       or

       I'd say a 10% adjustment is rather large, considerring everyone "thought" the data was correct before the adjustment.

       I don't have enough info regarding the algorithm to say anything more about it, except the general observation, again, that the chances of all the adjustments being on "the correct side of the belief paradine" can't be 100% (sorry - 99%).

       (By the way, can you please provide some kind of substantiation that "everyone thought" the historical data was correct before the adjustment? There's a rather large difference between thinking that data is 100% correct, and thinking it is correct enough.

48786. dana1981 at 02:24 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       As a general rule I would ask that people read the post carefully before criticizing it.

       Kevin - please read the "What is the Potential Climate Impact of Keystone XL?" section more carefully.

       jyushchyshyn - nowhere in this post did I 'blame Alberta'.  I merely talked about the Keystone impact on global and Canadian emissions.

       Arguments that "we'll just keep burning oil anyway" miss the point.  We have a choice whether or not to continue burning all of our fossil fuel reserves.  We need to choose not to.  Exploiting the unconventional tar sands oil is the wrong choice.  There is no reason to do it, and doing so has very negative consequences both for Canada and the world in general.  Exploiting the tar sands just brings some revenue to Canada at the expense of the global economy and the Canadian environment (and potentially the American environment, if the pipeline is built and inevitably leaks).

48787. Dikran Marsupial at 02:18 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Kevin, if everybody thought the data were right before the adjustment they would have stopped working on it and the adjustment would not have been made. The adjustment was made precisely because of the research of climatologists who work to understand the limitations of the data.

       Your argument is a straw man, the climatologists know that the data were collected for purposes other than climatology (i.e. weather forecasting, which has differing requirements), and research on dealing with these issues is ongoing (perform a google scholar search on "homogenisation" of station data.).

       Now just because the data are not perfect, that does not imply that they are unreliable, as the uncertainties are quantifiable, even if they are not displayed in every graph you see.

48788. Kevin8233 at 01:53 AM on 9 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

        Your claim that "ALL changes in the direction that support his belief?" is demonstrably false. In Jan 2010, an adjustment resulted in a decrease in global trend of 0.005^oC/century 

       So, my point is discounted because the changes are only 10%, yet, I am proven false because of one adjustment that is less than 3% of the overall adjustments?  That doesn't seem right.

        

       My overall point though, and the thread topic, is the reliability of the data.  I'd say a 10% adjustment is rather large, considerring everyone "thought" the data was correct before the adjustment.

        

       I don't have enough info regarding the algorithm to say anything more about it, except the general observation, again, that the chances of all the adjustments being on "the correct side of the belief paradine" can't be 100% (sorry - 99%).

48789. meher engineer at 01:50 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       Mason made a good point when he wrote, "You cannot see hydrogen sulphide gas, but at concentrations of a few hundred ppm (at which level you cannot smell it either) it can be deadly poisonous." Ozone, a Green House gas, makes for an even sharper point. G.M.B. Dobson, the "Dobson Unit" man wrote, “Fabry and Buisson, [4], in 1912, made careful measurements of the absorption coefficients of ozone and compared these with the absorption of sunlight by the atmosphere. From their measurements they concluded that there was about 0.5 centimeters of ozone in one vertical thickness of the atmosphere” (google the Wikipedia article on Dobson at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._M._B._Dobson, go to Ref 3, and click to get to his article on "40 years’ research on atmospheric ozone at Oxford: a history”; the quote above is in the Introduction). Ozone, in the stratosphere, protects all living things by absorbing the Sun's lethal ultraviolet radiation. Present in concentrations as small as a few parts per million in the air we breathe at ground level, it destroys our lungs. Incomplete combustion of fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel produces Ozone.  

48790. stonepig at 01:30 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       Interesting. Came back to see what else was commented.

       but Dr Yew???..."patently not about science. But it does have a rather sly political message of the sort that denialists will seize on to discredit SS: "there you go, we told you they were just pushing a leftie/hippy/tree-hugger agenda"

       I'm sorry, but I saw nothing unscience, sly, or something to seize on to boggle us stoned pigs.  I thought John's article was a delicious blend of where we are and what could happen, without stuff that boggles a statistical mind. Unless, of course, Yew consider the psychology of humanity a flabby soft science, ya, that'll connect Yew to a few good people...

       Thank you to the gardeners, and those antidotes about apples and such.  I wish those antidotes weren't true, but alas, the ignorance is the most boggling thing of all. Living in the country, snow drifted up to my windows, I am grateful for the water if it melts down into my well. Those are my dots.

       The connectedness is there, it's real, and despite those who don't see it, feel it, honor it, or protect it, it is still there, and will starve them during a great drought, or drown them on the seashore.

       If anything John, we need more of this expression about the reality of thought and action. Thank you.

        

48791. DSL at 01:14 AM on 9 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       I agree with skymccain, and I'll add that dialogue, as painful and slow as it is, is essential to the successful operation of a democracy over the long haul.

48792. Kevin8233 at 00:26 AM on 9 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Bubble burster here, your logic is slightly off.  Instead of calculating the total quantity of CO2 equivalents generated by this, only the difference between this and "normal" oil should be used, as this oil would replace other oil used, not be in addition to.

        

       Since the difference is 580 - 487 = 100 (round off for ease), the final number is about 17% of your original number - still high, but significantly less.

48793. chriskoz at 21:08 PM on 8 February 2013
       For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
       

       Bert from Eltham@26,

       One thing where you might still be wrong is that according to you "Climate Science is inherently very complicated". I totally disagree.

       When I, still some 2yago, was thinking that the "debate was not settled" according to popular media, I appreciated the "skeptic arguments" as something complex, requiring high degree of expertise to grasp.

       Now, when I started looking at the discussions on this site, I figured out the occasional deniers' comments are so hard to understand, because they are simply illogical, often succumbing to various fallacies. On the other hand, the climate science concepts discussed here, filled in beautifully my knowledge of physics, chemistry, statistics. Because the information is logical, in accordance with everything I learned from primary school to uni, it is actually easy to assimilate. Much more easier than "skeptic arguments".

48794. chriskoz at 20:35 PM on 8 February 2013
       Icy contenders weigh in
       

       mdenison,

       
       I don't know the source of this 69ft of SLR claim in 189sec of the video. The Foster & Rogling graph is not readable to me. It looks like they did linear extrapolation of SL vs CO2 trend from last glacial maximum, which is meaningless IMO.

       Alley et al 2005 in their Fig1 provide a little different picture. And different numbers are exptrapolated when Richard Alley does "the absolute stupidest thing" with this figure from about 0:45 to 1:30 of this video, it looks roughly 10-12m of SLR covering 10% of the current population.

       So those "absolute stupidest thing"numbers are uncertain, especially given the uncertainty of the CO2 levels for which we have to go back some 30Ma.

       I don't understand how Jason got it fixed at 21m. But the bottom line is, as you can carefullt read in Alley et al 2005, this process will take some 2 milenia. Meanwhile a lot of things can happen and CO2 may go back down. And even if not, the 10% population/infrastructure is not the "end of the world" disaster. It is possible for homo sapiens to adapt to that.

48795. skymccain at 19:22 PM on 8 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       Skeptical Science is not in danger of losing its focus.  However, as a few comments have suggested, in a way, we err when we separate what we can do from what we should do. There is no perfect agreement on a scientific perspective of anything – that’s what makes Skeptical Science so valuable – so why must we demand perfect agreement and separation on the subject of ethics; what we should do? 

        

       I fully support the publication of this article and appreciate both the supportive and non-supportive comments.  After all, nobody is forced to read what they are not  interested in are they?

        

       Is Dr. James Hansen to be criticised because he speaks about his concern for his grandchildren?

        

       I could go on and on but want to keep this short.

48796. Jesús Rosino at 18:54 PM on 8 February 2013
       A Climate Sensitivity Tail
       

       JasonB,

       Thanks for your insighful explanations, I especially liked the one about signal/noise in the LGM. I have to reflect on them for a while, but your arguments seem convincing to me. It would have been nice anyway if Annan had been around here to add something :).

       Of course, I agree that this discussion is interesting for the sake of accuracy, but doesn't have political implications. The main uncertainty in long-term proyections is rather the emission scenario we follow.

48797. MartinG at 18:53 PM on 8 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       The only reason for building the pipeline is that somebody wants to make a profit. Tar sands wreak a lot of environmental damage, and are a very inefficient source of energy. We need energy even though we don’t like what it does to the environment, but tapping shale gas is infinitely preferable to exploiting tar sands.

        So why not load these plans with the real costs of the project and hence make the project so expensive so it is uneconomical. Without profit greed will go look somewhere else. With less oil available the price will go up. Our real problem is to use our energy more efficiently – and the only realistic way to do that is to make it more expensive. Same goes for the SUVs - put a heavy tax on fuel to reflect the real cost of its use – let the price rise – and then, and only then will mr Joe Public take fuel economy seriously. Europe has done it – next step US and Canada.

48798. Trevor_S at 18:15 PM on 8 February 2013
       The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
       

       Dr Yew, you have a point but if you have the majority on the same page in relation to climate science, what then ? and while Andy seems to think we can all live in cities and install a few solar panels and spinning windmill blades, I don't think that will work, assumig you are trying to keep < 4 degrees cooler world.  If less than 4degress is not the end game, what is it ?

       It would be nice to see some firm numbers on the the destruction just doing that would cause, having everyone buy a new electric car, even if powered with renewables, billions of them ?  

       This seems one small step in perhaps providing a debate to what will the future have to be like ?  My partner and I are doing the modern version of Thoreau's iconic Walden, albeit with a Dam instead of a pond :)  as an expermineton in living a more simple existence for that very reason, we think there are no other options for the future but would love to see some informed debate with numbers.

       There was a similar piece here

       https://theconversation.edu.au/living-off-the-grid-is-possible-but-its-not-enough-to-fix-climate-change-10929

48799. jyushchyshyn at 17:51 PM on 8 February 2013
       An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
       

       Again, you are blaming Alberta. No need to give up your gas guzzling SUV as long as you fly the gas in from a country from which flaring accounts for 99% of the well to wheel emissions. People do need to remember that industry only makes products which consumers buy. It is also true that in the case of fuel for cars, trucks and SUV’s, most of the emissions from “well to wheel” come from the tailpipe. Even if oil from the tar sands could be replaced with a more ideal source of oil, which could be difficult because OPEC countries have a horrible environmental record, the best emission reductions which could be accomplished without a reduction of consumption of hydrocarbon fuels would be rather weak intensity targets. Intensity targets are the controversial class of greenhouse gas reduction targets which could result in increased total greenhouse gas emissions if the growth of consumption increases at a sufficient rate.

       In order to make real reductions in environmental impact, consumers must take responsibility for their choices. These choices must be informed choices. Even organic produce and products which are recommended by such environmental groups as Greenpeace may not be the most sound products. Use of energy must be minimized by using such products as compact fluorescent lights and well insulated homes.

       Whether the Keystone Pipeline is approved or not will not change whether or not Earth warms. If people stopped using gas to power their cars, there would be no market for the oil and the pipeline would shut down and the investors would lose their money. But if we continue to use the oil without the pipeline, we will just buy the oil from other sources. Or perhaps there will be a gas shortage, which will result in a huge backlash. Denialists already want to jail climatologists, and they have yet to make any kind of sacrifice. If the fight agianst global warming leads to a shortage, it will be unsafe to go on a walk unless you wear a T-shirt that says, "Global warming is a hoax."

48800. JasonB at 15:20 PM on 8 February 2013
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom Curtis,

       I think you'll find that a lot of "skepticism" can be boiled down to failing to put things into perspective. :-)

Prev  968  969  970  971  972  973  974  975  976  977  978  979  980  981  982  983  Next