Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 Next
Comments 61951 to 62000:
-
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 -
angliss at 17:08 PM on 6 March 2012New research from last week 9/2012
That Greenland paper strikes me as potentially very interesting. It seems like it might just be trying to put some science into the whole "Greenland was warm enough that it was called GREENland when it was settled" thing. -
KR at 16:41 PM on 6 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
owl905 - Dikran stated that "If we cut emissions sharply enough that the net environmental sink outstrips anthropogenic emissions, then atmospheric levels will fall." This is entirely correct. You (in your post here, and IMO) appear to have overstated the case - "The claim of an intervening set of forces to return it to a previous state (after the GHG proportions are changed, the oceans warmed, and the biosphere disrupted) is nothing more than wishful fantasy." - this is not correct, the various feedbacks on the carbon cycle will act upon any disturbance. Just, unfortunately, over a rather long time period that will be very unpleasant for us. My post here was an attempt to point out those issues. Perhaps it was not stated very clearly (in which case mea cupla), but that was indeed the intent. "While not trying to be abrasive..." - While feel I agree with you on the basic issues of anthropogenic global warming, I would submit that you are not succeeding in this aim. You have a tendency to be harsh on anyone with a differing view, when it may well be a difference of emphasis or presentation - and that comes across as disdainful. -
owl905 at 15:52 PM on 6 March 2012The Independence of Global Warming on Residence Time of CO2
@Dirkan (my last response) i) the discussion abour runaway or not isn't part of the discussion ii) You still miss the point and try to argue both sides of the street - Dikran15's claim was that levels would start to fall at the point of anthro-cutoff. You said it will and it won't. It comes across as noise. iii) Same thing - iv) Yes it is true. It's a poison sink. Again, you don't appear to understand the issue. "The sink isn't a great mystery, we know that the carbon is taken up by the other reservoirs, but we don't know exactly how much is going into each reservoir." More pedantic double-speak. And you carry on the assumption that the accounting is correct and that background measurement is globally representative. @KR - Dikran15's statement was exactly that levels start falling when the AG CO2 stops: "If we cut emissions sharply enough that the net environmental sink outstrips anthropogenic emissions, then atmospheric levels will fall." Your response that turns a comment about 'inter-glacials' into a Milankovich dump about glacial cycles is off-topic. Go back and read Dikran's comment restated here. And then stop rephrasing it into something he didn't say as a rebuttal. -
owl905 at 15:36 PM on 6 March 2012DenialGate - Highlighting Bob Carter's Selective Science
Patterson hired Harris to fill in for him while he was on sabbatical. Harris was the backfill lecturer for the years 2009-2011. -
owl905 at 14:33 PM on 6 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
@Rob Painting - it may not sound very likely to you, but the activity around the plates co-incides with the Indian plate interacting with the Asia plate, subduction/mountain raising, the closing of the Tethys Ocean, and a rearrangement of ocean currents. It co-incides with evolutionary jumps with species like the ancestors of the whale. It co-incides with a breakup of the South America connection to Antarctica to Australia. 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. (-Snip-). The ocean anoxia phenom is nothing new - Sciam was delivering article research about the food-chain collapse in the oceans for most, if not all extinctions, 15 to 20 years ago. The ocean-acidification isn't a new idea, but ... so what? Map of the world 50-60mya http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm A megatrend - India pushing into Asia and the rise of the Himalaya's. (-Snip-).Response:[DB] Please model the type of tone and comment you expect from others.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
Composer99 at 14:03 PM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
The reply I received is as follows:Thank you for your concern on this. The course in question has not been offered this year, and Tom Harris is no longer teaching at Carleton University.
As you can see, it is quite brief (and leaves out the slight detail that the class will continue as per Dr Patterson's note). -
GreenCooling at 13:57 PM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Thanks KR@77 and Dana@78, very good to see the previous discussion of CFCs. We are indeed fortunate that the Montreal Protocol has reduced emissions, but it is very unfortunate this is not better recognised in the policy debate. The projections of the erosion of the significant climate benefits by the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010 are I think cause for alarm, but very few ENGOs are paying any attention, and even one of the biggest that has been working on this problem is scaling back their campaign. I don't for a second argue that CO2 is not the main game, but the ongoing neglect of the significance of short term, fast acting mitigation strategies like controlling HFCs & HCFCs (and recovering and destroying CFCs) is baffling. The implications of the bottom panel from the Executive Summary (linked above) are bad enough, but the effect of using the 100 year GWP figures for HFC gases significantly understates the forcing impact of gases that have an average atmospheric lifetime of 21.7 years. Use of 20 year GWP figures almost doubles the projections depicted below.
"Bottom panel: Global GWP-weighted emissions expressed as Gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent per year. The emissions of individual gases are multiplied by their respective GWPs (direct, 100-year time horizon; CO2 = 1) to obtain aggregate, equivalent CO2 emissions. Shown for reference are emissions for the range of CO2 scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES). The CO2 emissions for 1950–2007 are from global fossil fuel use and cement production. Beyond 2007, the shaded region for CO reflects the maximum (A1B) and minimum (B2) SRES scenarios. The dashed line marks 2010, the middle year of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Also shown is the magnitude of the reduction target of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which is based on a 1990– 2010 projection of global greenhouse gas emission increases and the reduction target for participating countries."
The full Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2010 and associated Twenty Questions and Answers about the Ozone Layer 2010 Update contain a wealth of further information that may be of interest.
I'm sure there are better places to discuss the looming threat posed by HFCs, and to challenge the widely held notion that the work of the Montreal Protocol is done (and ignorance of its role in protecting climate in the past), and would welcome any suggestions?
-
Brian Purdue at 13:36 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
If James Powell does an updated edition of his book “The Inquisition of Science”, the Harper Government would fill a whole new chapter. When are politicians going to realise you can’t keep putting the national interest ahead of the interests of the planet? Climate change is a disaster without borders and we’re all in this together. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 12:26 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Pardon the grammar errors. I'm multi-tasking and as usual, doing it badly. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 12:22 PM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Cuts at the provincial level are also taking their toll. For example, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is mandated by law to monitor wildlife (aside from the ones monitored for hunting purposes). These include various forest birds, salamanders, small mammals, as well as larger mammals such as lynx. These are supposed to be monitored, by law, by the Wildlife Assessment Unit. However, they've not have any money to actually monitor* wildlife since the mid-2000s. Currently the biologists discuss what they could do if they were actually given money (they're using multiple species inventory and monitoring protocols, or MSIM for short). So nobody is actually monitoring these species, and as a result no-one really knows what is happening in vast areas of Ontario despite large-scale logging efforts in which MSIM is supposed to bring in information so forestry companies can more closely mimic 'natural' disturbances. *Thunder Bay district has had money to run a small pilot project for the past three or four years with the idea that this project would be expanded to all Ontario. Last year it became apparent they never would be given money so they proposed a team of four contract staff who, aided by summer students, would set up monitoring in just one region. The following year they'd move to another region. And so on. About as cheap as you can get (don't have to pay contract staff benefits, you lay them off for 2 or more months when not needed, you bring in university students who may or may not be trained well enough). Preliminary word this year is that there won't be funds for this either despite the mandate pushed by the government (who can tell everyone how forward thinking and environmentally friendly they are for mandating monitoring of non-game species). Politics. Sigh. It seems the bottom line is that if you work in any field where you may have to tell the politicians bad news from the nature, your funding is cut. -
Albatross at 11:27 AM on 6 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Dr. Bickmore, Re Spencer's comment that: "You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too. No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without warming." This is a very disingenuous statement for someone like Dr. Spencer to make. It seems to be designed to feed fodder to those who deny the theory of AGW or those who claim that climate sensitivity is low. He has to know that what he is claiming is misleading. Either that our he does not understand the physics as well as he claims or should. His argument seems to rely on the following assumptions: 1) CO2 is the only driver of global temperature. 2) The resultant warming will be montonic. 3) That trends calculated over a period of 10 years are statisically significant. Assumption 1 is of course false, need to elaborate on that. Assumption 2 is also false, and Dr. Spencer argues that intenal variability is real and important. Assumption 3 is critical, trends over periods of 10 years for such a noisy data series as global temprature do not yield statiscally significant trends. It is important to note that the interannual variability because of oscillations or volcanic eruptions can be as large as +/- 0.2 C. By comparison the long-term rate of warming of global temperature is about 0.15-0.20 C per decade. It is well-established that the interannual and even decadal variability affect global temperatures, and that decadal long slowdowns are real (e.g., Meehl et al) that is not under dispute. But as shown above, we have processes acting on very different time scales. It could be circa 2060 when CO2 values have doubled and the resultant radiative forcing is about +3.7 Wm-2 and a super El La Nina will still reduce global temperatures by ~0.2 C. But the global temperature that year will be much higher than an equivalent event occuring in the early 21st century. Similarly, when another slowdown happens down the road, say circa 2050, the plateau during that period will be substantially higher than the one being currently experienced. This process is already evident (see Figure below) and explains why 2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record, and one of the warmest years on record rather than one of the coldest.
[Source]
Your observation that, "The bottom line is that Roy Spencer has been arguing all along that natural variation can cause the temperature to go up or down for a while no matter what the external forcing is doing, and no matter how long the time period, but now he suddenly can’t imagine that this could happen over a single decade!", beautifuly exposes the inanity of Dr. Spencer's claim.
-
Albatross at 10:26 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Thanks Composer, much appreciated. This is intriguing, because Harris claims that 95% of the course material was sourced from Patterson. If true, that means Patterson has been misleading students with misinformation, falsehoods and distortions for some time. The Carleton University Academic Staff Association states: "The common good of society depends upon the search for truth and its free exposition. Universities with academic freedom are essential to these purposes both in teaching and scholarship/research. Employees are entitled, therefore, to: (a) freedom in carrying out research and in publishing the results thereof, (b) freedom in carrying out teaching and in discussing his/her subject and, (c) freedom from institutional censorship. Academic freedom carries with it the duty to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base research and teaching on an honest search for truth." I would contest that given Patterson's close affiliations with ideological astroturf groups ("Friends" of Science, Heartland Institute, International Climate Science Coalition, Natural Resources Stewardship Project) he is not basing his teaching in an honest serach of truth, but rather using his position to promote and advance his belief that CO2 is not a primary driver of global climate. He may be free to state his opinions, but IIRC he must state beforehand that what he is about to say is his opinion only. -
Tom Curtis at 10:12 AM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
John Hartz @81: 1) At the beginning of the Annex, the authors are listed as:"Model calculations contributed by: C. Bruhl; E. Byutner; R.G. Derwent; I. Enting; J. Goudriaan; K. Hasselmann; M. Heimann; I. Isaksen; C. Johnson; I. Karol; D. Kinnison; A. Kiselev; K. Kutz; T-H. Peng; M. Prather; S.C.B. Raper; K.P. Shine; U. Siegenthaler; F. Stordal; A. Thompson; D. Tirpak; R.A. Warrick; T.M.L. Wigley; DJ. Wuebbles. Co-ordinators: G.J. Jenkins; R.G. Derwent."
2) Regarding the specific scenarios is says:"Modelling studies have been undertaken by a number of research groups to investigate the climate consequences of several man-made emission scenarios The first category of emission scenarios is that generated by IPCC Working Group III, which represents a broad range of possible controls to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, these we refer to as policy s c ena r ios."
Given that the scenarios originated from WG III I presume economists where heavily involved. 3) It further says:"Each scenario includes emi s s ions of the main greenhouse gases, and other gases (such as NOx and CO) which influence then concentrations The emissions of carbon dioxide and methane are shown in Figure A 2 as examples For further information on the background to and method of generation of, these policy scenarios, see Expert Group on Emissions Scenarios (1990)."
That report, so far as I can determine, is not available on the web, and certainly not available from the IPCC. Its full title is given by the IPCC TAR as:"University, Vancouver. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 1990: Report of the Expert Group on Emission Scenarios. World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, New York"
The 1992 report, Emissions Scenarios for the IPCC - An Update report discusses the 1990 scenarios extensively. In the executive summary it says:"Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such. This becomes increasingly true as the time horizon increases, because the basis for the underlying assumptions becomes increasingly speculative. Considerable uncertainties surround the evolution of the types and levels of human activities (including economic growth and structure), technological advances, and human responses to possible environmental, economic and institutional constraints. Since completion of the 1990 Scenario A (SA90), events and new information have emerged which relate to that scenario's underlying assumptions. These developments include: the London Amendments to the Montreal Protocol; revision of population forecasts by the World Bank and the United Nations; publication of the IPCC Energy and Industry Sub-group scenario of greenhouse gas emissions to AD 2025; political events and economic changes in the former USSR, Eastern Europe and the Middle East; re-estimation of sources and sinks of greenhouse gases (reviewed in this Assessment); revision of preliminary FAO data on tropical deforestation; and new scientific studies on forest biomass. These factors have led to an update of SA90, the current exercise providing an interim view and laying a basis for a more complete study of future emissions. ..."
It seems to me that Anteros would do well to read the first and second paragraphs repeatedly until he understands the difference between a "prediction" and a "projection" as currently defined by the IPCC, and used at SkS (regardless of the looser use in the IPCC FAR), and thoroughly understands that emissions developments in the 1990s where not BAU as projected by the IPCC FAR. I presume that as the update relied on the World Bank for population projections, the original scenarios did as well, but that is just conjecture. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:39 AM on 6 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
RonManley "Can natural oscillations explain the climate...". Yes they can to some extent if by Climate we mean just what happens to air temperatures, and just shorter term 0 the oceans are 90%) changes like a decade or so. However if we work with all the components that make up the climate system - Air, Land, Cryosphere, Oceans - then any variations in the sum of all of these has to come from variations in something else. But there is no other something else apart from the Earths radiative energy balance with the Sun & Space. Arguments like Roys are based on just looking at a small part of the climate system (the Air accounts for only 3% of the added heat due to AGW) and not asking whether the other internal parts of the climate are changing to cause the Air to warm, or whether all the components are changing together due to an external source of heating. -
Composer99 at 09:36 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Albatross: I emailed the Dean's office and received a very brief reply from the Dean. I can't get at my email at the moment but will paste the text once I can. Dr Patterson's message appears to confirm my assumption of routine contractual/curriculum changes resulting in the class not being on offer this year and Tom Harris not being at Carleton. IMO if Dr Patterson is teaching ERTH 2402 next winter semester he is, of course, free to present his opinions to the students. However, if he, as Tom Harris did, systematically misrepresents the evidence to the students I think there is a responsibility to let them know they are being misinformed. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:25 AM on 6 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Just made a post over at Roy's blog and spotted this priceless gem. There really are some opinionated ignorant people out there: "The physical principle behind the analysis lies in the Kirchhoff’s law of 19th century radiation physics, which can be restated in plain English as: an object that absorbs emits and an object that emits absorbs. Absorption and emission are two inseparable equivalent identities of the same physical essence. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared therefore it emits as well thermal radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb, THEREFORE DO NOT EMIT(my emphasis). CO2 approaches 0 K because of its emission if there is no radiation source; absorption of the thermal radiation from the earth ground surface rises CO2 temperature from -273.15°C to -78°C only. CO2 gains heat by colliding with warmer nitrogen and oxygen to rise its temperature further, which can be measured by spectroscopy. " Also this article would be worth a read. It really does look like Roy's option #3 is the biggest culprit. -
Albatross at 09:17 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Composer 99 @7, Did your response from Carleton read like this? Can you say conflict of interest. "Dear colleagues As you may be aware a 97 page report entitled "Climate Denial in Canada's Classrooms" has been prepared by Chris Hassall, an insect ecologist post doc in the biology department, and three consultant friends (technical writers and former biologists) that is highly critical of the delivery of ERTH 2402 as taught by sessional lecturer Tom Harris. They apparently acquired video copies of the lectures and have dissected them line by line. Their criticism of statements made by Tom make up the bulk of the report. The tone of the report is, as one might expect from the title, that of strident activists. It is not terribly scholarly. They even had issues with Tom remarking that "the only constant about climate is change", a statement remarkably bland to geologists. As you know Tom last taught the course in 2010-2011 and is no longer a sessional lecturer with us. As an institution and department we firmly respect academic freedom in the classroom but are vigilant that the highest academic standards be maintained in the delivery of our courses. ERTH 2402 was not offered this year as part of the natural rotation of courses within the department. The course will next be offered in winter 2013 by Tim Patterson, a senior faculty member with considerable expertise in climate change research. Tom's services in teaching this course will therefore no longer be required. The report is spreading through the blogishere generating comments from supporters and detractors, but has only resulted in a single real media article thus far-- in the UKs left leaning Guardian newspaper. It will be interesting to see whether sufficient interest can be garnered before the story becomes stale amongst North American media outlets. If queried by media you may wish to refer them to the departmental chairman. If interested I can send you a link to download a copy of the report. Tim R. Tim Patterson, Ph.D. (Acting Chairman) Department of Earth Sciences Carleton University Tel: (613) 520-2600 ex 4425" Note who wrote the letter ;) The bolded text (my highlighting) is IMHO wholly inappropriate language for the chair of a department to be using. People can write to the Dean of Science here. -
muoncounter at 09:15 AM on 6 March 2012Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
Fires may be transients, but they do provide an interesting opportunity to trace the atmospheric flow of gases from known surface sources. McMillan et al 2005 did so with satellite tracking of carbon monoxide from South American fires: The presented AIRS daily global CO maps from 22 – 29 September 2002 show large-scale, long-range transport of CO from anthropogenic and natural sources, most notably from biomass burning. The sequence of daily maps reveal CO advection from Brazil to the South Atlantic in qualitative agreement with previous observations. Forward trajectory analysis confirms this scenario and indicates much longer range transport into the southern Indian Ocean. Fisher et al 2010 tracked carbon monoxide to the Arctic. As if it wasn't complicated enough, ENSO gets in on the act: AIRS shows lower than average CO columns over Alaska during April 2008, despite the Russian fires, due to a weakened Aleutian Low hindering transport from Asia and associated with the moderate 2007–2008 La Ni˜na. This suggests that Asian pollution influence over the Arctic may be particularly large under strong El Ni˜no conditions. Based on these kinds of studies, it is astounding that anyone can still pretend anthropogenic sources are insignificant. -
r.pauli at 08:49 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Toon-of-the-Week comment on Fox viewers: rather than calling them the least informed - rather they are most mis-informed. Deliberately so. -
Dennis at 08:29 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Excellent video. In the US, of course, we have had the not so humorous real world situation where the Attorney General of Virginia went on a witchhunt against Michael Mann. Ken Cucinelli never offered a shred of evidence for his investigation beyond the talking points of the deniers. Thankfully, on Friday the state Supreme Court threw his action out. -
DMCarey at 08:20 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Brilliant video in Mercer's fashion, but it honestly shows the pitiful trend Canada is on Rob Painting @5, between Harper's seeming war on science, the hush-hush extensive role of the military during the G8 (a friend of mine was a member of the unknown-to-public sniper teams on the roofs) & his proposed omnibus crime bill, Canada honestly seems to be taking steps towards a more fascist state, something that saddens me greatly. I am pleased to see the number of Canadians donating money to CFCAS to keep PEARL open (I donated this morning) P.S. owl905, I burst out laughing at that joke. I loved when Trudeau threw that in his face. Kent as minister of environment is likely the single most embarassing aspect of Canadian politics today -
Composer99 at 08:15 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
I emailed Carleton University about the CASS-CFI report linked by owl905. I was advised that the course wasn't on offer this year and Tom Harris was no longer on staff, which is all I was told. Since the CASS report was issued just last week and decisions about courses/staffing for this academic year would have been made long ago, I'm assuming that routine contractual/curriculum decisions were made resulting in the above situation. -
owl905 at 06:50 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
The cdn joke-of-the-day - "How do you get (Environment Minister) Peter Kent to shut up?" "Ask him to explain 'ozone'." Kent Oh-knows Ozone @Rob Painting - re: armed force - there's a simmering leftover controversy about the Billion-dollar 'ring-of-steel' showdown at the 2011 G8 in Toronto. The role of the undercover agents who infiltrated the demonstrator ranks was never explained (security reasons). The threat to the democratic laws is now on the table with the "Robocall" elections scandal. It's starting to read like the 'what went wrong' chapter in a sci-fi paperback. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 06:32 AM on 6 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Just out of interest, has Lindzen published many papers on Climate Change recently? -
Andy Skuce at 06:31 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
On anonymity: My full name can be found on the Team Page. If I were embarking on a scientific career in Canada, I would probably prefer to maintain anonymity on matters like this. I tip my hat to people like Robert who are willing to stand up and speak out on important issues such as this one. -
robert way at 06:06 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
The oddest thing is that Peter Kent (Minister of the Environment) was the one who hosted a documentary on the dangers of global warming and the science behind it back in the early 1980s... -
Rob Painting at 06:02 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Rob Way - sounds very much like a totalitarian government regime. The only thing missing is the use of violence to control the masses. Hard to believe we live in the 21st century. And a big pat on the back for having the courage to stand up to these bullies. Sadly we know that the Harper government cannot bully the physical laws of nature - there are inevitable consequences for delusional thinking. -
John Hartz at 05:47 AM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
@Tom Curtis #80: Do you have any information about the individuals comprising the group who produced the forecasts? Did the group include economists? Did they use an economentric model and forecasts developed by another global organization such as the World Bank? -
robert way at 05:47 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
"It's a sign of the times when there's a sense of gratitude here for not publishing the authors' names (there's too much downside)." Certainly that is true. There was discussion about publishing any of our full names because of potential ramifications. However I felt obliged to share mine since right from the beginning on SKS I have shared my name, and also I have already criticized the Harper Government vigorously in the past, so it's nothing new. I suppose my applications for government funding may complicate things from time to time though. -
Doc Snow at 05:06 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
"Environment" Minister Peter Kent responded to critical questioning about the decisions to close down PEARL by saying "I don't have a million and a half dollars in my back pocket." However, it appears possible that ordinary Canadians of good will just might: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/03/04/arctic-research-station.html It should be noted that this is not due to extreme financial pressure; Canada's net debt ratio is lowest in the G-7, and the last deficit was a very manageable $33 billion. http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2011/report-rapport-eng.asp Sadly, the video does seem to accurately encapsulate the true attitude of the Harper government toward science--and especially science that is in some way environment-related. -
owl905 at 04:49 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
It's a sign of the times when there's a sense of gratitude here for not publishing the authors' names (there's too much downside). The Conservative Party is a relabelled tea-party revolt called The Alliance. It sabotaged the Canadian response to Kyoto - and turned the pollution problem first into 'we don't need a tax or a foreign solution', and then into 'Green Shift is just expensive, job-costing greenwash'. Add: 2009 - 500 Scientists submit a protest document to the PM. Scientists Protest 2012 - Tar Sand players form an environmental response common front - Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. COSIAll 2009-29011 - The teaching of the pro-pollutionist case at Carlton U is the latest inroad by anti-Science Syndrome. CASS Report-1.7meg PDF (special notes - p.7 connection to Heartland; and a very disturbing note about fast-food science - pp. 10ff Student Feedback). To any American that wants to consider what a Tea Party in power could do to the USA ... look north, and add tar. -
Biophilia at 04:23 AM on 6 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
From robo-calling to stymie democracy, to censoring scientific research, the Harper government is the worst thing that has happened to Canada recently. I for one, think it's time we start electing scientists to office. Instead of these goons with a cheer-leading degree in free-market economics, and a penchant for profits before people. -
owl905 at 03:53 AM on 6 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
@JH - suggested SKS wanted to follow up on it. SKS rebuttal topics are one of the main reference sources in the report. Your response has an implication that you didn't look at the report.Moderator Response: [JH] You are making a false assumption. I did read the report and did see the multiple references to SkS. I still don't know what specific "follow-up" action you want SkS to take in this matter. -
Tom Curtis at 03:52 AM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
John Hartz @79, thank you for the question. Prompted by it, I looked at the annexe of the IPCC FAR, and found the graph of the concentrations of key GHG in the scenarios in figure 4.3. Using those graphs, and the graphs of actual concentrations from NOAA above, I made a comparison of 2010 concentrations. The first figure is the IPCC FAR BAU scenario concentration, while the figure in brackets is the actual figure. The final figure is the percentage of the projected concentration which was actually achieved: CO2: 400 ppmv (394 ppmv) 98.5% CH4: 2250 ppbv (1800 ppbv) 80% NO2: 328 ppbv (323 ppbv) 98.5% CFC 11: 417 ppbv (246 ppbv) 40% CFC 12: 734 ppbv (534 ppbv) 73% So stated, this underestimates the impact of the relatively low emissions in the 1990s. Because of thermal lag, the reduced forcings in the 1990s will result in reduced temperatures in the following decades. For comparison, in 2000 the projected BAU CO2 concentration was 384 ppmv, while in real life the concentration was only 368 ppmv, or 96% of the projected value. -
John Hartz at 01:31 AM on 6 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
@Tom Curtis #76: The first sentence of the PDF document you quote from reads: "The Steering Group of the Response Strategies Working Group (Working Group III) requested the USA and The Netherlands to develop emissions scenarios for evaluation by the IPCC Working Group I." Is there another document that details how the USA and the Netherlands developed the four scenarios? -
CBDunkerson at 00:14 AM on 6 March 2012Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
DMarshall, smoke and soot in the air block incoming sunlight and cause cooling, while dark soot on the ground absorbs more sunlight and causes warming. That being said, smoke and soot are transient effects. Ten years after the event their impact is effectively non-existent. Thus, in the immediate aftermath of a fire smoke and soot are a net cooling forcing, then as the soot settles to Earth it is a net warming forcing for a few years, until the soot is washed away and it becomes a net zero forcing. In the long run smoke and soot don't matter. On the other hand, the carbon released into the atmosphere by the burning may stay there contributing to warming for centuries. -
Tristan at 23:52 PM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Fran Barlow++ -
Fran Barlow2 at 23:01 PM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
A jscipt text-tip-based glossary would probably work best, especially if there were a link to a dBase with fuller explanationModerator Response: [JH] For the benefit of our non-tech-savy readers, please explain what a "jscipt text-tip-based glossary" is and how it would work. Thank you. -
Martin Lack at 22:29 PM on 5 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
UPDATE: Frustrated by my failure to hitherto get the British media to take up this story - and realising I had made a reply from Professor Lindzen very unlikely by making unsubstantiated "contentious assertions" - I have now apologised for the latter. However, I would still like - indeed I think the World deserves - an explanation for all of the things Dana and I (and no doubt many others) have noticed about Professor Lindzen's talk that were, to say the least, "strange"... No cause for alarm? – You cannot be serious! (5 March 2012). -
Doug Hutcheson at 19:17 PM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
A glossary would be very useful to me, as I am not familiar with the terms used and references are often made in places where I cannot work out meaning from context. -
Rob Painting at 18:28 PM on 5 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Owl905 - "The PETM was an epochal event featuring the effect of the Indian subcontinent grinding into the southern borders of the Eurasian continent. It produced repeated stress fracturing all around the Eurasian continent. The result was oceanic-driven toxic acidity over millennia." That doesn't seem very likely. The PETM carbon isotope excursion happened in less than 20,000 years, there is no plausible volcanic/tectonic mechanism that could have caused such an abrupt event. I know James Hansen has made the same claim, but it does not stand up to scrutiny. It is, however, probable that the exposure of new rock, through India smashing into Asia, helped in rapid draw-down of atmospheric CO2 through the process of chemical (silicate/carbonate) weathering. "The KT boundary featured oceans.......... The Great Dying of the Permian" An interesting feature of the very latest research emerging from these extinctions events is that ocean acidification may have been a common 'kill mechanism". It's likely that other factors, such as ocean anoxia, played a part, but it's remarkable that so many different researchers are zeroing in on ocean acidification. SkS will cover many of these studies in the not-too-distant future. -
RonManley at 18:14 PM on 5 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Thanks for the comments - most of which I accept - which is why my description of the 'model' is littered with caveats. For example, I state explicitly that the use of “natural climatic oscillations” as independent variables is “questionable”. Such a simple ‘model’ cannot of course trace the transfer of heat and, for that matter, CO2, into and out of the oceans. It cannot handle water vapour feedback. All I claim to have done is to show that temperature variations for the last 150 years can be easily simulated if you included GHGs; if you exclude them you have to postulate some other undefined alternative forcing mechanism. When Kevin Trenberth suggested that the null hypothesis should be that humans are changing the climate I did not agree with him; now I am starting think that he might be right. -
dana1981 at 17:27 PM on 5 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
We also discussed the role of CFC emissions reductions in Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1 and the Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong". As also discussed in those posts, climate scientists are not in the business of predicting how GHG emissions will change. That is primarily a policy question, decided by policymakers and the public. That's why climate scientists create so many potential emissions scenarios, and create climate projections for those scenarios. -
owl905 at 17:07 PM on 5 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
The PETM was an epochal event featuring the effect of the Indian subcontinent grinding into the southern borders of the Eurasian continent. It produced repeated stress fracturing all around the Eurasian continent. The result was oceanic-driven toxic acidity over millennia. The KT boundary featured oceans drenched in the downpour of atmospheric dust from the Chicxulub impact. Ocean poisoning was a key feature. The Great Dying of the Permian sea-featured one of three extinction processes - a massive oceanic die-off from ubiquitous dead-zones. Now industrial civilization beats the rate of disruption from any of those events ... and it won't have much effect. Okay, not much other than reef collapse, shell dissolution, reproductive cycle inhibition, and weakened resistance to disease and predation. Congrats, the winning ticket in the Great Bonehead Lottery is 'collapse due to pollution'. Best supporting perp award goes to - 'did nothing with the knowledge for half a century'. -
owl905 at 16:33 PM on 5 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Pity SKS didn't think my e-mail forward was worth a topic - the CASS report is a pretty comprehensive reubattal to Tom Harris's pro-pollution sludge at the University of Carlton. This was the e-mail: "Skeptical Science just moved up the charts to front and centre. The debate about Tom Harris teaching at Carlton has produced a scathing report response from CASS. Their report extensively quotes from Skeptical Science. It starts here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/03/01/environment-climate-change-carleton-course.html The organization: http://www.scientificskepticism.ca/ The report about Tom Harris and honest science: That's a "Wow" signal, eh?" Anyone else can catch up and join the dots from Heartland's supposedly 'phony 2012 memo' and seeing it in the viewfinder.Response: [JH] What specific action had you requested SkS to underatake? -
DMarshall at 16:31 PM on 5 March 2012Warming to Ignite the Carbon Bomb
Question to the knowledgeable here: Is there any negative feedback from extensive fires? Does the smoke and soot act as positive or negative?
Prev 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 Next
