Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 Next
Comments 61901 to 61950:
-
dana1981 at 10:17 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Lindzen is undoubtedly very smart and very well-informed about climate science. Which is why it's all the more puzzling that he claims we've doubled CO2-equivalent, that we can just ignore aerosols' impacts on temperatures, that he fails to differentiate between transient and equilibrium warming, etc. If Lindzen doesn't understand these things, then he's not nearly as smart as I think. If he does, well, it's against SkS policy to comment on peoples' motives or suggest they're being dishonest, so there's not much more I can say about that scenario. Regardless, as long as Lindzen continues not only to make, but rely so heavily on this obviously wrong argument, he simply cannot be taken seriously. -
logicman at 10:16 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
les #14 Thanks, I already left some comments there. When I first signed up at the Guardian the name 'logicman' was already taken, so I has to use a variation. It's easy to spot. My comments are the ones about charity law. :-) Back to the topic: the committee room rented for Lindzen is quite small. Perhaps the organizers realized just how many empty seats there would be if they rented the Royal Albert Hall or Wembley Stadium. Of course, if they had made their "debate" open to the public then they may well have made a tidy sum from ticket sales: but they would have been outnumbered by those of us who are careful to examine all of the available scientific facts before reaching our conclusions. It is a sign of a very closed mind to start with a conclusion and seek evidence in support, as is done by the campaign against the climate act. They are offering prize money for essays: "We invite pieces from 1,000 to 2,000 words in length, to gore one of the sacred cows of the environmentalist movement." -
Stephen Baines at 10:03 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Lindzen is undoubtedly accomplished, but how someone's ideas are considered by ones peers is a better measure of current reputation than a publication list. His ideas have been out there for long enough that people have been able to test them directly. Unlike the atmosphere, they just don't hold water. The only question is why he holds onto these ideas so stubbornly. Generally, that is not an admired trait. -
Stephen Baines at 09:49 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Scaddenp...Don't they use delB-11 in borate to estimate past variations in pH? That is a more direct measure supposedly. It doesn't vary much either I believe. -
owl905 at 09:37 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
@Rob 17 - if you want to dispute Lintzen's list in his "Publications" section, do it with him. There seems to be two references in the list to Jupiter, and the suggestion that papers aren't papers because they're not 'peer-reviewed' papers doesn't get much traction here. The non-paper you produced is a debate published in Nature magazine - Nature reviews and accepts/rejects those discussions. If he's done some padding with Business Today, it's minor compared to the compendium of work in atmospheric physics over three decades. It's his accomplishment and reputation that was behind the stunned reaction when he first forwarded the 'AGW has stopped' interview in 2004. He's one of the skeptics that has a lot of expertise traction. -
actually thoughtful at 07:39 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
GreenCooling - I am interested in the refrigerants you mention - one of the problems we have right now in renewable energy is that R-134/R410-A (the common ones after the Montreal Protocol took effect) is limited to a high temp of about 120F in a ground source heat pump. But to get to the high temp you need to really work the compressor, so we need a refrigerant that can easily handle higher temperatures (180F would be ideal...). Less compressor work = less electricity = smaller PV/wind array or (in the worst case) the less coal burned. This is for the concept of a ground source heat pump (GSHP) powered by PV as a way to handle both heating and cooling (heating alone is better handled by straight up solar thermal). Do you know, or can you point me towards, the temperature properties of the all natural refrigerants you mention above? Are you thinking of ammonia or CO2 as the refrigerant? I've read about ammonia powered chillers driven by evacuated tube solar thermal panels. Currently not small enough for residential, but intriguing. -
actually thoughtful at 07:30 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Reading this post late, I am struck by how much Anteros is stuck on the same problem that Michaels had: treating BAU as a common term, rather than a scientifically defined term. If BAU means "business as usual" - and "business" hasn't notably changed - then they may have a point. But in both cases, Michaels, and now Anteros, have to ignore the fact that the term BAU is defined to be a particular forcing (different I think, one being Hansen's 1988 BAU and the other being the 1990 FAR BAU -but because the terms are defined, there really isn't an excuse for the confusion. Anteros, it can be hard to see the problem with something when you have espoused it so vehemently - take a look at Micheal's BAU problem - see if you can recognize where Michael's erred, and then see if you recognize it in your own position. At this point I think we have a new myth "BAU means whatever happened". -
scaddenp at 06:50 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Well paleoclimate cant actually measure pH directly. Instead the studies infer carbonate compensation depth which is a meaningful, ocean pH measure. Let's see the evidence that this fluctuates wildly. -
dana1981 at 06:47 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Rob @17 - pretty much the same line since 1989, in fact. -
Trent1492 at 06:30 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
I have heard the objection that since ph fluctuates widely on a daily basis that this measurement of a average ocean ph level is useless. I get the feeling that this argument is akin to the bit of sophistry that involves the same argument we hear in regards to measuring global temperature. -
scaddenp at 06:13 AM on 7 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
There are many things that we can say with confidence about the PETM (likes the lower limit on the rates of acidification, timing constraints etc.) but I dont think cause is one of them. This is an active research area with many problems to solve - I'd keep away from definitive statements until some of the dust has settled. Oh, and watch the journals... -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:59 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Interestingly, Lindzen has been plying pretty much exactly the same line since at least 1993. http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/165pal~1.pdf Owl905 @ 3... I got the above article from your link. There are a number papers on the list that are not actual papers. Some are just articles like this one. Others are papers on the climate of Jupiter. I think Lindzen's contribution to climate science is probably about half that number of papers. -
Paul D at 05:50 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
The definition of 'The House of Commons' is very specific. It is the room where the primary debates take place and voting on policy is conducted. Lindzen did not address anyone in there so basically Heartland Institute is ignorant of cultures and politics outside the US and has faked a meeting that never took place. The reality was... AFAIK a conference room was rented in the Palace of Westminster and invitations and people bought tickets for the event. On the other hand... Hansen did address one of the parliamentary select committees about 3 years ago, which was broadcasted on BBC Parliament and online. -
angliss at 05:37 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Kevin C - yes it does. Thanks for the explanation. -
rustneversleeps at 05:22 AM on 7 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
@ Mark R, I certainly grok the logic of your speculation, but if there is one thing that the financial crisis of 2008-???? reinforced for me is that it not so easy to isolate "yourself" (be it an individual, corporation, nation) from global forces. Some dodgy mortgages go into default in Arkansas, and the next thing you know Google stock is down by 70% and Gordon Brown is suggesting that Britain take equity stakes in its banks. I am not so sure it plays out as neatly as our intuitions suggest. But if that were indeed the "planning" on The Harper Government(tm)'s part, it would be beyond cynical. The muzzling of our scientists is truly odious behaviour. This from a Harper who said while in opposition: "Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about Government policies and programs citizens and Parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and an incompetent or corrupt Government can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy." Putz. -
Trent1492 at 05:09 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
I am still at a loss on why the glaciers of Kilimanjaro are melting. I understand that temperatures at the summit have only risen a trivial amount. I know the loss has been blamed on increased sublimation but that leads to another question of why sublimation has increased in East Africa? I know that past researchers have minimized the role that AGW has played, yet I am still suspicious of why a glacier that has been around for at least 11,700 years would just start to melt at the same time as other mountain glaciers of the world. -
les at 05:01 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
5 - logicman I don't think so. Lord Lawson has a job to do. Lord Lawson's links to Europe's colossal coal polluter -
Dave123 at 04:58 AM on 7 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Ron, A question of methodology here: Did you divide your work so that you have a training data set (say prior to 1985) and a prediction set? If not then your comparison with IPCC on anything is meaningless, yes, no? Dave -
Tom Curtis at 03:51 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
ribwoods @84, my apologies. It should be 60%. -
Albatross at 03:50 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
Trent @5 good find. As someone who has undertaken some work in this field, I never found the argument/hypothesis land use change on the lower slopes argument affecting the precipitation on the summit (almost 6000m) very compelling. However, the fake skeptics (e.g., WUWT and Marc Morano ) have been happily perpetuating this idea for some time now. Contrary to the what the fake skeptics claim, Mölg et al. conlcude: "Thus, for the moment, the hypothesis that local LCC is another forcing of glacier loss on Kilimanjaro cannot be corroborated." And "We therefore argue that attribution of glacier change and variability to large-scale climate dynamics is unlikely to be distorted by local LCC." I'm not sure what Pielke Senior has to say about this particular issue. Oddly enough, despite his very vocal critique of models, he was happy to endorse a modelling study on his blog by Fairman et al. (2011) which suggested that vegetation was affecting the precipitation at medium and low levels (not the summit) of Kilimanjaro. Interestingly Mölg was a co-author on the Fairman et al. (2011) paper. I have not yet seen Mölg et al. (2012) featured on Pielke's blog.... -
ribwoods at 03:35 AM on 7 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Tom Curtis @ 80 "CFC 11: 417 ppbv (246 ppbv) 40%" One of those figures (probably the "40%") is incorrect. -
Kevin C at 03:33 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
angliss: Estimating TCR doesn't require linearly increasing CO2, or more accurately linearly increasing forcing. You can (almost) always use a deconvolution to deduce the impulse response function from an arbitrary set of temperature and forcing data. From the impulse response function you can deduce TCR, EQS, or anything else. How much data you need depends on the noise level and the timescale of the response of course. However, doing it on the back of an envelope without doing a deconvolution does require a linearly increasing forcing which roughly mimics the definition of TCR in all but scale. Does that clarify the point? -
dana1981 at 03:28 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Hyperactive @2 - Lindzen published Lindzen & Choi 2009, and a slight revision to that (very flawed) paper in Lindzen & Choi 2011. angliss @11 - TCR is defined as the response to a linear forcing (see the link to the Monckton post above). -
Steve O at 03:23 AM on 7 March 2012It's cooling
If you are interested in an interesting analogy I discovered that contrasts a medium-term decline against a long-term trend (using sports), check out this post: http://ow.ly/9u8GZ
If one were to believe the latest trend, it would imply that we believe athletes are getting fatter and slower.
Check it out and tell me what you think.
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:22 AM on 7 March 2012Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
Trent, based on the Mölg paper you reference, a more appropriate interpretation would be that modelling suggests that "the hypothesis that local LCC is another forcing of glacier loss on Kilimanjaro cannot be corroborated". And thus refuting two (here and here) of Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr's papers on LCC (land-cover-change), as they might apply to Mount Kilimanjaro. -
angliss at 03:11 AM on 7 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Maybe a little off topic as it's a technical question (if there's a better place for this, please forward me there). You say that estimating TCR requires a linearly increasing CO2, but I don't understand why. The transient response of an electronic circuit can be measured by an impulse response, step response, linear response, or any other kind of response you want. In theory, there's no reason we couldn't derive a differential equation that represents the TCR as a result of an impulse response, which is much closer to what we see. For a given system, the equation you derive from the impulse response is identical for any other input (step, linear, exponential, et al), so once you've got the equation, you can get anything else you want too. As a matter of practicality, deriving such an equation is not viable given the number of terms and solving for it numerically in a GCM is the right way to do it, but even so, wouldn't the terms of the differential equation define the TCR, not the response to a particular input type (linear)? Is it because TCR is defined as the response to a linear increase, or something else? -
JMurphy at 02:15 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
myhyla103, could you provide the link to where you read the Singh, Bengtsson paper. -
mohyla103 at 01:55 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
KR: I see. Declining snow extent seems a natural result of a warming planet so I'm not surprised. My original post was not an argument that warming isn't happening, just that the figures presented there seemed exaggerated in reference to "melting glaciers". -
KR at 01:47 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 - Snowpack is right up there with the glaciers.
[Source]
Less snow, less summer storage, less runoff - hence impacts on drinking water and agriculture
-
mohyla103 at 01:42 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis: I do like your phrase "partially dependent". This seems a much more reasonable way to describe the situation. Do you know if there have been any studies in at-risk areas to determine how much meltwater actually comes from glaciers in the summer vs. remaining snowpack from the previous winter? It seems this would be valuable information. "Glaciers act as natural dams..." which can burst causing massive flooding events downstream. A retreating glacier would eliminate this possible threat, so it's not all bad news. "...absorbing large precipitation events..." I don't understand what you're referring to here: rain or snow? Does a glacier have a way of absorbing rainwater besides damming it up? logicman just told me rain cannot add to the mass of a glacier, so I'm confused now. If it's snow, why would a glacier need to absorb this? Is snow just accumulating on the ground more of a danger? "...while maintaining a relatively steady flow of melt water." Melting snow would also provide this, but in areas where the snow melts away quickly, glaciers would definitely provide a more permanent source of water. I agree with you on this point. I just wonder how significant this percentage is compared to snowmelt in those at-risk areas. -
mohyla103 at 01:17 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
logicman: Good point. However, I'm not arguing that glaciers aren't shrinking or won't continue to shrink. I'm just curious where the evidence is that *so many* people are dependent on the actual water melting off glaciers in the first place instead of other sources like snowmelt or rain runoff. -
mohyla103 at 01:08 AM on 7 March 2012It's not bad
JMurphy: Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but the misleading part is that the paragraph title is "melting glaciers" but the 1/6 of the world's population figure seems to be referring to the number of people living in a "snowmelt-dominated, low-reservoir-storage" area. Glaciers and annual snowfall are quite different things but Barnett seems to ignore the difference. The Barnett paper says of the Himalaya–Hindu Kush region: "...there is little doubt that melting glaciers provide a key source of water for the region in the summer months: as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50–60% of the flow in other major rivers." After checking the three sources for these figures, I find this claim to be very misleading! Allow me to present the relevant sections of Barnett's sources: Singh, Bengtsson: "Reduction of water availability during the summer period, which contributes about 60% to the annual flow..." Careful reading reveals that this source does not say glaciers contribute 60% of the total water flow in the river, but rather that the water flowing in the summer period (a combination of rain, glacier melt and snow melt) is 60% of the annual total. From this we can deduce that glacier melt itself is only a fraction of 60% of annual flow, not a full 60%. Singh, Jain, Kumar: "The snow-covered area in the basin was determined using satellite imagery. It is observed that, on average, about 70% of the area of the basin is covered with snow in March/April and this is reduced to about 24% in September/October. The average snow and glacier runoff contribution to the annual flow of the Chenab River at Akhnoor is estimated to be about 49 percent." They do not claim 49% is from glaciers, but a combination of snow and glaciers, so for Barnett to use this figure when talking about glaciers alone is inaccurate. Also, it appears there is still snow cover in this basin into October, so presumably it would be there all year. The importance of this is that, in a glacierless basin, there would still be plenty of snow melting every year to replenish the river. The actual fraction by which river flow would be lowered without the glaciers is not explained here (?) but it certainly is not 50%. Singh, Kain: "It was found that the average contribution of snow and glacier runoff in the annual flow of the Satluj River at Bhakra Dam is about 59%..." Once again, snow and glacier runoff is lumped together. As snow is an annually replenished resource whereas a retreating glacier is a more irreversible change, it would be helpful to know the separate contributions of each. For Barnett to use the full 59% in his paper, he is actually talking about a scenario where not only are the glaciers gone, but it never snows anymore either! Sorry, I can't comment on the Immerzeel paper as I can only read the abstract and there is nothing specific to the Barnett paper in it. But I hope you'll agree, that Barnett's paper is misleading and a misrepresentation of data. -
CBDunkerson at 23:45 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
nuclear_is_good: "Does anybody else see a pattern here..." My God! You've discovered a 'natural cycle' to denier arguments! :] -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:49 PM on 6 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
@owl905 If you feel I am missing your point, then consider it is just possible that it is because you have not stated your point with adequate clarity. It also is not helpful for you on one hand to say that you are not trying to be abrasive while in the next post to accuse me of "pedantic doublespeak" and using emotive terms like "poison sink", whilst ignoring the scientific evidence that suggests your position was incorrect (e.g. the lack of unequivocal evidence for an increase in the airborne fraction, to which you could also add increasing ocean acidification). Now if you have substantive issues with what I have written, then do make detailed unambiguous criticisms, and I will try and answer them, but only if you give me enough information to understand the nature of your criticism and adopt a manner more appropriate for scientific discussion. You write: "And you carry on the assumption that the accounting is correct and that background measurement is globally representative." The accounting of anthropogenic emissions would have to be wrong by a factor of about 0.5 to change alter the conclusions. It is extremely unlikely for the error to be anything like as much as that. If nothing else, governments monitor fossil fuel use for the purposes of taxation, so there are very good records. Regarding background measurements being globally representative, well while I have used the Mauna Loa record, there is a global network of monitoring stations, which show that the background level that is pretty much the same, regardless of where you are. There is a difference of IIRC about 2ppm between the North and Southern hemisphere (because most anthropogenic emissions are from the Northern hemisphere and it takes time to equalise globally). Satellite data (AIRS) suggests that CO2 in the atmosphere is not completely well mixed, but the differences do not alter the conclusions of the mass balance argument. This is because the mass balance argument depends on the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, not on its absolute level at any particular location. As it happens the Mauna Loa observatory is in the tropical region where levels are comparatively stable.
-
Liam23 at 22:41 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
"Of course when the data are zoomed out to the fullest extent with the seasonal variations included, the long-term trend (Figure 3) is difficult to discern." I think that should read "not difficult to discern" if it's a reference to figure 3. -
Sceptical Wombat at 21:45 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
A large part of Lindzen's paper is taken up rehashing Lindzen and Choi 2009. A good summary of the problems with LC09 can be found at RC - Lindzen and Choi Unraveled In brief: LC09 uses a technique which is extremely sensitive to changes in the end points chosen - moving an endpoint by a month or less makes a major difference to the outcome and there is no obvious reason why they chose the endpoints they did. LC09 compares energy entering and leaving the atmosphere above the tropics - ignoring sideways movement of heat within the troposphere LC09 ignores the impact of the Mount Pinatubo eruption. -
funglestrumpet at 21:02 PM on 6 March 2012Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)
I don't know if old posts are reviewed, but I hope that this is read by someone at sks, because something is wrong with the way posts are notified to recipients of your daily updates. I did not receive notification of this being posted, and I assume by the low number of comments this post has attracted, I am not alone in this regard. It is all the more galling because I was waiting for it. Monckton's behaviour is an important example of the sort of behaviour that is stopping the world from taking the action necessary to thwart the worst effects of climate change. If only for the sake of posterity, it is necessary that posts such as this attract as many comments as possible so that future historians will have a clearer knowledge of the perverse human behaviour exhibited by Monckton and his ilk and seek to structure society in a manner that will stifle obnoxious individuals of a similar character. Please try to ensure that all posts are notified via your daily emails. -
Tom Curtis at 20:56 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 @174: (1) is definitely cringe worthy. On the other hand, the following rivers are all sourced in the Himalayas and are at least partially dependent on glacial melt water for steady flows: Ganges (India, Bangladesh)400 million plus Huang He [Yellow River] (Tibet, China) 150 million plus Indus (India, Pakistan) 170 million plus Irrawaddy (Burma) 30 million plus Mekong (China, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam) 17 plus million (delta only) Yangtze (Tibet, China) 430 million plus Total: 1.2 billion plus This excludes several minor rivers flowing into arid regions with lower population density:
Glaciers act as natural dams, absorbing large precipitation events while maintaining a relatively steady flow of melt water. As such, they help prevent floods, and prevent seasonal water shortages. Consequently your skepticism is in this case at least unwarranted.
How dependent the various rivers are on melt water varies substantially, ranging from 60% for the Indus river to 10% for the Huang He and Yangtze. As such, loss of the water flow buffer from glacial melts would only effect people relying on the Yangtze or Huang He on very wet (flood) or very dry (drought years), whereas on the Indus, adverse impacts could be expected every year. Further, because glacial melt is not the only impact of global warming, the overall effects on different rivers can be quite different. The primarily rainfall dependent Chinese rivers, for example, are expected to increase average flows by about 10%, while the Brahmaputra (a major tributary of the Ganges) is expected to reduce average annual flows by about 20%. (Note these are annual figures, and do not address the issue of changes of timing of river flows.)
-
Rob Painting at 20:24 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla @174 - "reduced global precipitation hasn't been proven as a result of AGW yet. Has it?" No. Global precipitation is expected to increase with global warming - it appears to have done so in ancient "greenhouse" periods much warmer than today. So there is an observational basis to support the modeling too. The problem being that it (precipitation) won't fall in some areas where humans have set up large tracts of agriculture. A compounding problem is the precipitation is likely to fall in heavier, but less frequent, downpours. Again a significant problem for agriculture. See SkS post:The Dai After Tomorrow -
logicman at 20:20 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103 it takes only a slight rise in temperature to make precipitation fall as rain instead of snow. Rain runs off glaciers and cannot add to their mass: that requires snow. -
JMurphy at 20:03 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103, to find out more details, visit the Intermediate Version of this topic, have a look at the references used (Barnett 2005 and Immerzeel 2010), and then come back and state where you found the "misleading claims". -
logicman at 20:01 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Moderators: there is an error in my comment. Bob Carter is not a trustee. Please substitute the link below and delete this comment. Thanks. Bob Carter is an academic adviser to the GWPF -
nuclear_is_good at 19:57 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Does anybody else see a pattern here - during La Nina years the deniers all start talking about how "the warming has stopped" or "the warming is not relevant", while during El Nino years we get the crap on how is something else - the sun, the cosmic rays or the Leprechauns, or that "it will not be that bad"?!Moderator Response: [JH]No matter how often and how well refuted, climate denier memes are constantly regurgitated by climate denier drones. -
logicman at 19:56 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
The Heartland Institute, not widely know for accurate reporting, fell for the 'Lindzen addresses Parliament' hoax - hook, line and sinker. "Massachusetts Institute of Technology atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen delivered a comprehensive presentation to the British House of Commons last week explaining why humans are not creating a global warming crisis." http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/ Lindzen's pdf of his seminar talk commences with thanks to the organisers: the campaign to repeal the climate change act. One of their patrons, Bob Carter, is a trustee of the GWPF. The GWPF is an "educational" charity and as such is not permitted to engage mainly or entirely in political activities. Perhaps Lord Lawson will now drop Bob Carter from his panel of "scientific" advisers. Even better, perhaps the GWPF, an organisation which merely publishes biased opinion pieces and does nothing to promote education, will stop calling itself an educational charity. -
mohyla103 at 19:36 PM on 6 March 2012It's not bad
Did anyone else cringe reading this one: === Melting Glaciers The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world’s population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water, agriculture – may fail. === 1) One-sixth of the world's population is not just many millions but at least a billion. 2) While I could believe a billion people are dependent on rainwater runoff, or spring runoff from melting snow that fell during the winter, where exactly are there a billion people in the world depending on water from actual glaciers? If global warming was somehow able to stop rain, or prevent snow from falling every year, I could see that being a problem for a billion people or more. As far I know (though I'm admittedly quite ignorant on the subject) reduced global precipitation hasn't been proven as a result of AGW yet. Has it? This statement seems takes an easily observable phenomenon (glaciers shrinking) that the general public can understand, and associate it *incorrectly* with catastrophic results. It's this attitude of alarming the public with misleading claims that make me skeptical of AGW reporting accuracy in general. -
shoyemore at 19:28 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Lindzen's presentation got some publicity but not a lot. However, I did see comments about it on blogs here (Ireland) so this is very useful. Thanks. -
Tommi Kyntola at 19:06 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
How does the Canadian media handle all this? -
MarkR at 19:02 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
My speculation is that this is sensible long term planning on Harpur's part. Canada is going to do ok out of global warming. Whilst the USA will expect to struggle with large internal migration and potentially huge migration from Latin America, Canada can use the USA as a buffer with its oil, water and agricultural land as diplomatic bargaining chips. There's a good chance that other nations will be seeing their agriculture fail and when you decide whose population does or doesn't starve you have a lot of bargaining power. In the same way that oil and gas revenue supported Putin's government and diplomacy, Canada could become a hugely important breadbasket. This would be consistent with the actions of the Harpur government, which is showing a very intolerant streak. -
owl905 at 18:56 PM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
@Hyperactive: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html 240 papers. That's exactly why it's 'mind your answers' when it comes to Ricky Mit. @Martin Lack - underestimating an opponent leads to defeat. Congrats to the progress of Ricky MIT. Never thought there would be a presentation (at $3500/hour plus expenses (/jealous)) that didn't mention his pet dog Iris. It's a magic illusion trick. Look for the signals - using SST to reduce positive feedbacks ... what's the trick? (hint - La Nina upwells cold water that he doesn't take into account). Ricky Mit claims correlation doesn't mean causation ... while he tries to sell the phony 'CO2 lags temp spike' as a causation sequence. His Arctic extent chart obscures the highs and low trends by playing seasonal slinky with the view. He mumbles through the equatorial 'hot spot' he was nailed for a few years ago, with an updated 'yea it was wrong but I was still right about the models'. He just forgot to explain the implication of the observation. -
Rob Painting at 17:25 PM on 6 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Owl905 - "@Rob Painting - it may not sound very likely to you..." Nor to experts on the PETM either. Note Jerry Dickens comments in the SkS post: CO2 Currently Rising Faster Than The PETM Extinction Event he states: "With all deference to Dr. Hansen, this idea makes no sense given the timing. The massive carbon injection at the onset of the PETM happened within a maximum of 60,000 years, and probably less." Dr Dickens is one of the most published scientists on the subject of the PETM, but it doesn't take a genius to appreciate his point. "As well, your unsupported claim about "rapid" CO2 draw-down relating to India "smashing" into Asia is just nonsense - the start to end collision was a 40million-year process." Internal consistency is not your forte is it? If the process occurred over 40 million years, how exactly did it cause an event lasting 20,000 years? Some citations of peer-reviewed literature would be useful here, otherwise it is just your unsupported inexpert opinion. It would also benefit you to read studies, or watch some videos, on the chemical weathering process. Work by James Kasting, Robert Berner or Lee Kump would be a good start. As too would the video lecture by Richard Alley: The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History
Prev 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 Next
