Recent Comments

Prev  1260  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  Next

Comments 63351 to 63400:

63351. tonydunc at 21:46 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam, I went through every one of Moncton's points when he came out with the rebuttal. I do remember three or four specific things that seemed to me to have been clearly valid points by Moncton. It was a long time ago, if you wants to pay me for my time, I would be happy to go through the while thing and find those places. the whole opening first pages of his response is rather self serving rubbish (meant in the English sense of the word).It is patently arrogant and obnoxious, and strangely silly, almost infantile in places. Of course that in itself is not reason to dismiss it. Can you tell me you actually read those first few pages and did not think it pretentious nonsense? Oh What the heck I will do it now for free. And I am no scientist, so it is pretty sad that someone with no rigorous background can so easily see through his supposedly brilliant rhetoric. the first 25 are meaningless snipping. 26. Moncton quotes Abraham as saying that " And if you listen to what he said, you would come to the conclusion that the following things are true" then he lists ice melt, world not warming,scientists are lying, etc. 27. The VERY NEXT point he CHANGES that "What evidence do you have for your assertion that I SAID, “The world’s not warming”. That is so obvious any intelligent person ( and certainly any judge would see are two different things. 28. He goes on to point out that he acknowledged warming in the 20th century. Abraham never claimed that Moncton denied that. 29. he then says that since 2001 has been a cooling trend. Which of course is a lie. 30-33 is the exact same thing only with sea level. Nowhere does Abraham state that Moncton said there has been no sea level rise since 1990 34-37 is exactly the same regarding sea ice melt. Of course Moncton does admit to talking about arctic recovery, for which he is of course absolutely wrong. 38-39 is similar about Polar bears being threatened. As far as I know Moncton is distorting when he says Polar bear populations have increased "very substantially" since the middle of the 20th century. I think there was some recovery due to lack of hunting. But recent studies show a decline, but this is a pretty sketchy issue on both sides of the argument in my view, and not really pertinent to determining ACC. SO another lie by Moncton. 40-42 is ocean acidification. And that one s a hoot, as he invents a series of fanciful myths about the changing nature of climate change by duplicitous climate extremists. But his argument, in my view totally supports Abrahams contention that one would get the impression that there is no such thing as ocean acidification. Is Moncton stupid or was he just pretty sure no one except an idiot (like me) would actually bother reading that far. 43-49. is about scientists lying. Now here I do not know enough to pass judgement on the ethics of statistical use. though I think it rather laughable that Moncton is schooling Abraham about it. Still as an entertainer with an interest in climate change it is celar that the IPCC was not :lying" when they conclude that global temp has been increasing faster in late 20th-eary 21st century than from the early and mid 20th century. He would have a point for the past 10-13 years, but even that is disputable if one factors in mitigating issues, such as solar radiation and aerosols, etc. 47-49 are one of the places where I thought he did have a point. Atlantic hurricane strength. But this is a case not of lying but of cherry picking. Again here is an issue that I do not think is germane to the question of climate change as there is no real consensus among experts on specific effects of storms at least not in the current time frame. 50. Moncton conflates "Where I said conspiracy" with "one would come to the conclusion" 51-61 is an amazing piece of rhetoric that is almost pure garbage 52. Gore never said there was an imminent threat of a 20 feet rise in sea levels because of ice sheet melting. Now having seen the movie, i was not thrilled that he did not say it would take many hundreds of years. and there were probably some that took it as being in the relatively near future 53-54. Moncton makes the nearly insane assertion that sea level rise from ice sheets in the coming century would be comparable to 20th century melting of the ice sheet. 55. Irrelevant nonsense. 56 Greenland ice sheet melting. flat out distortion of the science and a use of the word millennia, which, if we want to be picky means at LEAST 2 thousand years , and almost certainly flat out wrong. If Global temps go to a 3°C+ anomaly and stay there, I am pretty confident that any physicist would agree it will not take thousands of years for Greenland to have a nice luke-warm lake in it's center. 57 pretty much the same thing as 56 and untrue. 58 just blatantly untrue. IPCC is very clear that melting of ice sheets is a very difficult thing to determine with rising temps. 59. Distorting the legal ruling on Al Gore's movie. Judge Basically said that Gore's movie could be interpreted to be in the near future and that it should be pointed out to students that complete melting would take a very long time. Quite reasonable on the judge's part. So this is basically a lie. 60. Strawman argument about Gore's buying shorefront property. 61. argument about lack of sea level rise in spite of accelerating ice melting. Moncton has no explanation or rebuttal to the cited reference, just asks a seemingly devastating rhetorical question. Pointless. the issue is more complicated. 62. temperature of last interglacial. Minor point subject to interpretation. But at least this was not an outright lie or distortion. Big victory for Moncton here! 63. Whining about scientists making unsubstantiated64 assertions in referenced citations? Who knows maybe there is some validity, but still rather meaningless. 64-65. Something about IPCC projections and and doubling of CO2 and committment to future climate change. Need someone else to answer that one. 66-77. About polar bears. Again I don't see this as being of particular relevance to determining the reality of ACC. Mostly ridiculous gobbledy gook that is rather lawyerly trying to establish reasonable doubt about Moncton's distortion. The fact is that he cited a paper by an expert on polar bears and only used the information that made it appear that ACC has nothing to do with polar bear survival. He totally ignores accepted views on polar bear evolution assuming they were the same as they are now during the last interglacial, and ignoring that species can be at the brink of extinction and survive to spread rapidly. So a major change in the arctic could very well be disastrous for polar bears But he might have a point here, who knows. his point that this was four polar bears that died from a storm is not unreasonable just one sided. Waste of time basically. Ok. I am up way past my bedtime. If you, Adam, or others want me to continue, let me know and I may be able to do so tomorrow. So far I agree with my hazy memory and the contentions of numerous commenters that this is mostly a gish gallop of the ridiculous, the sometimes plain wrong, and occasionally blatant lies from Moncton.
63352. les at 21:43 PM on 20 February 2012
       Book review of Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars
       Well, having read it. First and foremost can I offer a health warning. If you've ever - and most people have - suffered from some level of bullying or victimisation at work; this'll bring back those memories, pumped up on steroids. By the end of the 2nd from last chapter I was feeling deeply angry. Indeed, although I appreciate the comments policy of SkS - I was feeling like there should be a site where one could sink to the same level towards deniers as they have towards climate science... My other, overall, impression was "wow! Did that really happen so long ago?!?" - there are so many 'arguments' which continue to float around the deniosphere, which are just so old, out of date and discredited. It really makes you wonder what they spend their Heartland Institute money on. Finally, I guess I agree with Liam23 that the PC story remains opaque. I though it was well explained but, as 63 Brandon so clearly shows, it's possible to miss-read. Mann actually says that the tree ring data could dominate the analysis if he hadn't actually done the PC analysis correctly... which he does, which he does explain but, clearly, it's still opaque to many people. And what a shame that people miss the point that the same analysis has been reviewed, repeated and supplemented with other data so often that, in full context, the original hockey-stick analysis was as solid as it could be. all in all, a good read.
63353. les at 21:02 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       Again, IMHO, the hijack/troll issues seems to point to a "dungeon" thread for comments... except it doesn't seem easy to move comments between posts. I was on one BB somewhere where the admins had a hack so that selected posters could only post in the dungeon (for a period, anyway).
63354. Rob Painting at 20:40 PM on 20 February 2012
       Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
       skept.fr - here's a free copy of Loeb (2012).
63355. John Cook at 20:29 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       My wife LOLed at the beaker part of the cartoon, which I take to mean that's how she see me.
63356. Brian Purdue at 20:29 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Yes, when you engage Monckton you must understand you are engaging in a political agenda. He has made climate change the dominate part of his political platform so it’s extremely important to counter the destructive influence his bogus science and misinformation is having on the understanding of the scientific facts behind global warming and action to limit its effects.
63357. Rob Painting at 20:24 PM on 20 February 2012
       Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
       MA Rodger@ 16 The recent GRACE paper suggests a slightly lower contribution of land-based ice melt to sea level rise, which, if confirmed ,indicates greater thermal expansion than previously supposed. There's much work yet to be done on this, I wouldn't hang my hat on it.
63358. garethman at 19:29 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       We in the UK felt the full benefit of Moncktons understanding of complex subjects when he and like minded colleagues were part of Thatchers government. As a nation we have never really recovered from that disastrous experiment in basing action on what a truth is believed to be, as opposed to what it actually is. The thought of the same political philosophies transferred to climate science fills me with horror.
63359. Doug Hutcheson at 19:27 PM on 20 February 2012
       Video of Chuck Kutscher debunking climate skeptic arguments
       ChuckK @ 6, thanks for providing the link, I found it most entertaining. Apparently, 'debunking' consists of expressing factless opinions and ad homs. The comments are hilarious. Have no fear, your reputation is only enhanced by such 'debunking'.
63360. SoundOff at 18:11 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       This might interest SkS as the subject of a Coming Soon article. It’s getting a lot of spin (undeservedly I think) by local climate skeptics that say it favors their side of the argument, though it seems unlikely that it would be so given the authors. Perhaps the skeptic spin is based on sloppy mainstream media reporting about it or misleading headlines. I don’t have access to the article or time now to fully assess it. ____________________________ The Alberta oil sands and climate Neil C. Swart & Andrew J. Weaver Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1421 Published online 19 February 2012 The claimed economic benefits of exploiting the vast Alberta oil-sand deposits need to be weighed against the need to limit global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions. The Alberta oil sands and climate Example of an MSM Article: Coal the true climate change bad guy, analysis shows
63361. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:04 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       Sorry, I do see myself as Tom Baker but I would like women to see me that way as well, no disrepect to Jeff Goldblum, he did survive T-Rex and all. Someone exceptional, eccentric and maybe in need of some nurturing as well - 'Come to my arms my Beamish Boy. Oh Frabjious Day, Caloo Calley, he chortled in his Joy'. Lets be honest, once you get past John Pertwee, the Doctor was able to pull the chicks. /endsexism> And really I think the Denialists are thinking more of Mini-Me. Their ego doesn't let them see themselves as anything less than the big partner in the game.
63362. dana1981 at 17:58 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       I've done a lot of responses to Monckton's various Gish Gallops, and in my experience, it's hard to find a single argument he's made that's not a gross distortion of reality. Any point he makes, if you actually take the time to research it for yourself, you find that he's misrepresented his sources and/or reality in general. In responding to Monckton's latest response to SkS, we had to break it into a three-part series because his post contained so many distortions. Tom's latest example is a good one. I remember doing the same check myself when reading that claim about Al Gore's new SF home. I checked the address for myself and saw that both it's nowhere near the shoreline and well above sea level. Doing this check took me about 30 seconds on Google Earth. That's the basic level of Monckton's errors - he doesn't even make the simplest effort to make accurate claims. He simply has no interest in reality, and anyone who takes him seriously is being duped.
63363. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:53 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       Owl905. I don't entirely agree with you there, for a fundamental reason. The technology we have today, if fully deployed could deal with the threat. But we aren't even remotely looking at deploying it fully at present. Past technology couldn't cope with it. Future technology certainly could. But there is a basic premise in your thinking that may not be obvious. That our societies will always be able to respond to these threats even though the threats are fundamentally likely to undermine the capacity of our societies. Since the nature of the threat is multi-generational and even multi-century, the assumption is that the capacity of our society to use the resources and knowledge we have will not be undermmined by the very threat we face over very long time scales. Consider things like, famine becomes pandemic in much of the world. What are the psychological impacts of this on each new generation growing up? How does it shape their emotional makeup. What does a world of perpetual violence do to peoples IQ, Emotional self-control, sense of civility. What happens when education levels for the mass of the population drop because the teachers can't work full time because they are growing food for their family, and protecting it from marauders? What happens when famines in China lead to its breakup and several key provinces eventually fall under the control of mafia like warlords. Provinces that are the major sources of Rare-Earth elements that drive much of our modern world - Indium, Hafnium, Niobium... What happens when starving countries actually turn completely pirate and disrupt world trade routes. What happens when refugee flows reach 100's of millions? How well do the target/host countries survive? Then ask the question, with so many assaults like these and more happening to the functioning of our societies, how long before that DVD disk that contains your family happy snaps, or course notes on the science of Protein-Folding, is unreadable because you DVD drive is dead and you can't replace it because the rare earths aren't available, the electricity supply is erratic anyway so you are re-learning candle making and the only real use for that disk is to sit your beer mug on because you are learning beer making as well. The best quote I have ever read about the fragility of societies wasn't intended as that at all. It was from a book about neuro-plasticity in the brain. 'Civilisation is only ever 1 generation deep'. Because all it takes is one generation that are not adequately trained, educated and developed into civilised people, and civilisation has ended. We may focus on what 'we' can do to fight these threats such as AGW. But we far too easily slip into thinking that AGW doesn't reciprocate the attention. The principle impact of AGW may well be the damage it causes to the psychological make up of our descendents. Some hold-outs and bastions of knowledge will remain of course. But that knowledge is useless without the capacities of a well functioning, civilised, intelligent, educated and ultimately capable society to deploy that knowledge. We in the West have no experience or conception of what a world without these things looks like. Ask the people of Afghanistan, Somalia, New Guinea. They could probably teach us a bit about the limits of what can be achieved.
63364. adelady at 17:44 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Lloyd "What I think happens with people like Monkton is that they read maliciously. They skim through a document looking for the bits that they can see as supporting their position. And they seize on them and do not try to understand the whole context." I think that also fits neatly with the salesman persona. They don't listen to what you are saying. They're only listening for clues and hooks for their next point and ignore the rest. Which means that very often their next statement can easily be directly contrary to the intent of yours. And their own, if they've been doing that nodding and agreeing thing.
63365. Rob Painting at 17:39 PM on 20 February 2012
       Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
       Neil - If you are talking about surface warming, there is a serious problem in the central argument presented here. I think you are confused by the difference between a "constant composition" atmosphere (which has warming in the pipeline), and the case of warming based on past emissions (for which there is no warming in the pipeline) The current TOA imbalance is that which the planet has yet to respond to. Most of the greenhouse gas forcing has already been used up in raising sea levels, warming the oceans and atmosphere, and melting ice over the last two centuries. The remaining imbalance is 'warming in the pipeline', i.e. further warming will rectify this imbalance, but of course, we keep adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - so it can't come into balance. I hope you can follow the distinction here - not all forcing from historic greenhouse gases have been used up. The slow response is due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. "But don't believe me, look at the Damon and Weaver paper clarifying this misconception" I can't find a copy of the paper, but it was discussed over at Real Climate by climate modeler Gavin Schmidt back in 2010. It seems to be discussing something completely different from what you infer. I don't know how useful it is to consider an imaginary scenario where CO2 emissions suddenly drop to zero, but man-made aerosols (reflective particles of pollution that cool the Earth) don't. Sort of like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
63366. Doug Hutcheson at 17:31 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       Thread hijacking takes an initial trigger comment, followed by response comments from both 'sides' of the argument. If nobody bites, there is no hijack. I consider the Monckton thread which prompted this question to be illuminating, especially because it brought a number of clarifying responses which showed the trigger comment to be what it was: an ill-informed opinion contrary to the evidence. If it is convenient to do so, a method of barring further posts from the contrarian until the original issue has been completely dealt with would seem in order, but I take the view that discussion here should be as open as is consistent with remaining on topic. It would take a great deal of misbehaviour on the part of a commenter before I would seek to have their comments removed. I think the current level of moderation suits my taste.
63367. adelady at 17:21 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       HIjacking? Mostly annoying when people don't respond to guidance from moderators or other posters. But there are instances where this is a natural consequence of an on-the-spot education process. Given the nature and purposes of the site, we shouldn't automatically shut down an enquiring, if misguided, mind. Like it or not, it's all down to judicious moderation. I'm happy for earlier intervention on the move-to-another-thread basis. Allows an earlier move to warnings and deletions.
63368. owl905 at 17:11 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       @JP40 12 - If it's a general unchecked carbon-pollution bloom spread throughout the biosphere, the web of life will degenerate and collapse. The complexity introduced rivals the PTX, and the speed of the event rivals the KTX. The persistence of artificially high CO2 levels is a geological precedent. Humans have technology, past present and future, and that's the big game-changer. We may not be last on the snuff list, but we'll see most other species go before us. We'll be accompanied by pets, pests, produce, and ghosts.
63369. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:25 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       Yep JP40. I have to agree. And the big extra factor(s) you don't mention are all the pressures on our capacity to grow food - ocean acidification, fisheries collapse, ocean dead zones, soil degradation, collapsing water tables, increasing fertiliser costs due to excessive demand for Natural Gas. And so far I haven't mentioned any of the global warming issues. Initially I think Global Warming will be a 'force multiplier', not too bad in its own right, but compounding all the other threats. Then later in the century it kicks in harder and really tips things over the edge.
63370. Doug Hutcheson at 16:02 PM on 20 February 2012
       Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
       Tristan @ 14, thank you for the clear explanation. I grasp the concept better now.
63371. Jose_X at 15:59 PM on 20 February 2012
       Loehle and Scafetta find a 60 year cycle causing global warming
       A new version of the paper (late 2011) can be found at the WUWT site. That and a comment I made: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/#comment-897319 It seems a quadratic was added to help improve some aspects of the curve-fitting model and maybe even contribute to their claims against the IPCC. Glancing at the older paper, I think they added some more refined spectrum analysis, making their overall analysis a bit more comprehensive. Note on page 10 that their equations not only mysteriously drop pretense that the future trend might be faster than linear (that would be inconvenient to their claims), but they limit their model to the 1850-2100 range, as if stating those bounds would protect their analysis from the dreaded hindcasting failures we get from most curve-fitting.
63372. Bernard J. at 15:05 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       On the matter of thread hijacking, I concur with dhogaza. Enforce with discretion, after warning, when it becomes obvious that the hijacker is attempting to obscure the original post. Any posts targeted could be moved to a bin, so that they don't go whining that they were censored off the site. On the matter of "Coming soon" pieces, is there still a plan to debunk Plimer's "How to get expelled from school"? It's getting some traction amongst some of my ignorant aquaintances, and having a SkS link to which to refer would be handy.
63373. DSL at 14:48 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Warming and Cold Winters
       Copie is undoubtedly a troll and has absolutely zero interest in engaging the science.
63374. Glenn Tamblyn at 14:39 PM on 20 February 2012
       Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
       Neil at 27 Let me try an analogy on the 'in the pipeline' argument to see if it helps. I own a swimming pool centre with 2 pools, a toddlers wading pool and an olympic size swiming pool. They are connected by a pipe so at equilibrium they hve the same surface level. I have a float valve in the toddlers pool that lets extra water in if the level is low. Then I decide to raise the overall level of the pool. So I adjust the setting of the float valve so that it will aim for a higher level. So water starts flowing into the toddlers pool and its level starts to rise. As this happens the emerging difference in height between the two pools starts a flow into the olympic pool. Eventually the flow into the toddlers pool will match the flow into large pool and the toddlers pools stops rising while it waits for the olympic pool to fill. The olympic pool is the oceans. The toddlers pool is the surface - land, sea surface, air, ice, they components that contribute to determining radiative balance with space. And the level setting of the float valve is the GH gases. So if we have made a one off adjustment to the valve ( a step change in GH gas levels ) then eventually levels in both pools will stabilise and the valve will shut off - no more imbalance. However what we are actually doing is slowly but ointinually adjusting the valve higher and higher. So the water flow through the valve is steadily increasing. Thus the Toddlers pool is able to keep rising somewhat even though it is being retarded by flow into the Olympic pool. So your example of stopping all emissions is the equivalent of stopping adjusting the valve higher. But the filling of the pools still needs time catch up with the setting the valve is finally at before the water flow eventually stops. The real world situation would obviously be more complex enough but in essence the world must keep warming until surface temperatures rise high enough to cancel out the energy imbalance. And that can't happen until the oceans stop drawing down heat and limiting the surface warming.
63375. LucAstro at 14:19 PM on 20 February 2012
       Climate Change Denial book now available!
       Have you checked the latest book from Michael Mann? It is in already in kindle form BEFORE it is printed on paper. At least this author is consistent on saving paper and energy. Fascinating story! The book EAARTH also appeared first on Kindle. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/12/422774/michael-mann-author-book-hockey-stick-climate-wars/
63376. muoncounter at 14:17 PM on 20 February 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       TomC#98: 'Some level of volcanic activity' does not necessarily result in a measurable change in forcing. Robock 2002 is an excellent summary: what is needed is explosivity, a tropical location and the right geochemistry. Solomon et al 2011 make the case that there is 'persistent variation' in stratospheric aerosols even without volcanic input.
63377. Lloyd Flack at 14:07 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       What I think happens with people like Monkton is that they read maliciously. They skim through a document looking for the bits that they can see as supporting their position. And they seize on them and do not try to understand the whole context. They try to win, not to understand. I've had online discussions with denialists and have often had them ridiculously misunderstand a point I made. And I've asked myself, "Did I explain things unclearly?", And sometime I did. And sometimes there was no way that they could have misunderstood if they had tried to understand. Scientist try to fit things together into a coherent overall picture. Denialists are not interested in doing this. But in climate science it is the overall picture where the proof is. Lacking intellectual integrity, denialists cannot recognize it in others. They assume that others have to have their judgment ruled by politics the way that theirs is. How to get them to step back and reconsider? Difficult on the Internet, especially on a climate oriented site. Sometimes you can gradually get them to reconsider. One on one, face to face I think you can stop them evading, mostly by making them realize that they are doing that, But you can't do that on the Internet. All you can to is to stop them from misleading others.
63378. skywatcher at 13:57 PM on 20 February 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       muoncounter, Greenland settlement wasn't necessarily climate-limited - Medieval warmth is not a prerequisite to have Norse Greenlanders. Inuit are, of course a great demonstration that habitation of that part of the world, whether your technology be limited or advanced, is not strictly climate-controlled. And the Norse were also able to trade commodities with Europe, such as walrus ivory, providing a good incentive for settlement. Their survival well beyond the beginning of the Little Ice Age, on a diet that became much more marine (Arneborg et al, 1999), also shows climate not as the ultimate limiting factor.
63379. michael sweet at 13:48 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Warming and Cold Winters
       Copie, Here is today's anomaly map. Where is this "record cold weather" you speak of. I see a sizable area of +20C, which has been record hot in Svalbard. The cold is only the coldest in the last 30 or so years. It is not cold by historic standards, they have just gotten used to it always being warm. Name your location that is as cold as Svalbard has been warm.
63380. Tom Curtis at 13:46 PM on 20 February 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       muoncounter @97, there is nearly always some volcanic activity going on somewhere on the Earth. Given that, it is reasonable to assume as neutral conditions an average level of background volcanic activity. However, whether you treat this as a zero level so that reduced volcanic activity is treated as a positive forcing, or whether you treat zero AOD as the zero level, so that all volcanic activity is represented as a negative forcing is only a matter of baselining, and makes not difference to the final calculations. For the IPCC, volcanic forcing is (or should be) benchmarked at the presumed level of volcanic forcing in 1750 to bring it inline with the other forcing measurements.
63381. Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       This is only marginally on topic, in that it is an example Monckton's misrepresentation of (easily determined) facts rather than of scientists per se. However it is certainly relevant to Adam's threadjack. In Monckton's St Paul Lecture he says:

       "[26:46] “... Gore knew the judge was right because in the year he made that movie he spent four million dollars buying – yes, some of you have got there already – buying a condo in the St Regis Tower, San Fancisco just feet from the ocean at Fisherman's wharf. [27:09] “So how many of you think, that as you went in through twenty feet of sea level rise, through the doors of that building he would not find himself going glug glug glug?"

       (Numbers in square brackets are times on the tape.) When I first heard this comment, I was immediately suspicious. One of the few things I know about San Francisco is that it is very hilly, so that a few feet of difference can make a large difference in height above sea level. The map on Monckton's slide reinforced that suspicion. The hotel was apparently close to the Golden Gate Bridge, and as large bridges are placed at elevated locations near the shore, likely to be at an elevated location. So I did some checking. The first thing I found out is that St Regis Tower is indeed just feet from Fisherman's Warf. Nine thousand feet, give or take. That is a fact as easily ascertained as looking at a map which marks both locations. You have to wonder why Monckton chose words that suggest St Regis Tower is on the fore shore rather than over one and a half miles from Fisherman's Wharf, and three quarters of a mile to the nearest shore. Next I checked Robert Rohde's handy Sea Level Rise Explorer: As you can sea, I have marked the location of St Regis Tower with the red diamond. As you can also see, the shading in that area is a yellowish green, indicating an altitude above sea level of between 12 and 20 meters. So, do I think patrons of the St Regis Towers, San Fancisco will be going "Glug, Glug, Glug" as they enter the lobby if sea level should rise 6 meters? Not a bit of it. Bearing in mind that Monckton is using the supposed altitude of the St Regis Towers lobby to make an accusation of fraud. You should assume therefore, that he has checked his facts, a task as easy as emailing the St Regis Tower and making inquiries. I do not know whether he did that, and deliberately lied, or whether he just has so complete disregard of truth that he didn't even bother. What I do know is that this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and a misrepresentation on which he built a slander.
63382. JP40 at 13:34 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       I am pretty sure that if greenhouse gass emissions remain unchecked, civilization will collapse before enough damage is done to set of the chain reaction of doom that killed almost all life. A special on the History Channel called Earth 2100 imagined a worst-case scenario of the affects of climate change, and most other issues that people worry about, like epidemics and border riots. It predicted the total collapse of modern, co2 emitting civilization at about 2100, with widespread anarchy starting at about 2080.
63383. muoncounter at 13:25 PM on 20 February 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       TomC: "unusually low volcanic eruptions contributed, particularly in the early twelth century." A 12c volcanic lull wouldn't explain the prior Norse settlements in Greenland. You seem to suggest that 'neutral' conditions (0 net warming), requires some level of volcanic activity. Why would that be?
63384. scaddenp at 13:23 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Warming and Cold Winters
       Gee, try reading what the scientists are trying to tell you. Do you notice the record high temperatures as well? (ie where you live is not the world).
63385. Copie at 13:17 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Warming and Cold Winters
       Give us all a break you "Global Warming" religion cranks! Trying to convince us that record cold weather is really global warming is a sick joke. Go and do something useful, help someone who is suffering from the extreme cold.
63386. scaddenp at 13:16 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       "Your disinclination to discuss the actual nuts and bolts of the dispute is duly noted." I am trying to encourage Adam to do just that. Adam, how many things from say Monckton, CO2"science" etc need to be shown to you as misrepresentations before you would stop relying on such sources?
63387. actually thoughtful at 13:01 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       Hi-jacking seems to be a subset of the overall comments process on SkS - someone will post something provocative or false, then 5-10 different posters will kindly point out the errors of their way. It would be nice if one person would point out the errors, ask the poster to retract or justify their comments - and have it be enforced that they can't post anywhere else until they either document the claim or retract it - that would, to my mind, be the platonic ideal of holding skeptical commenters accountable. If you mean, by hijack the thread, long back-and-forths as a person works through their particular issue (in a reasonable way) - I view that as fairly healthy, and I suspect if an honest person is confused on something, probably many others are as well, so we all benefit from their process of understanding.
63388. dhogaza at 12:57 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       "Hijacking is annoying but just a variation of "off topic". Like "trolling" it is rather subjective. Heavy-handed use would silence debate that should be happening. " The debate that should be happening is debate about the original post that heads a particular thread. Hijacking is by definition an attempt to end that legitimate debate by changing the subject. Obviously enforcement would be somewhat subjective, but this is true of the entire moderation policy. It's unavoidable. I'd say yes it should be against the comment policy. Enforcement should be similar to the enforcement of other elements of the comment policy, which typically is a warning, followed by comment editing plus warning (if only part of a comment is in violation), and if the offender's persistent enough, deletion of comments in violation.
63389. Pierre-Normand at 12:39 PM on 20 February 2012
       Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
       "So future warming requires future imbalance." That's certainly true. However it takes time to restore any new imbalance (unless the variation is so slow that the state never is transient). It takes time for oceans to warm. So, if there is a variation in the absolute values of the forcing between some time t1 and a later time t2, the resulting imbalance (that will need to be restored from t1 onward) is F(t2) - F(t1) + I, where F(t) is the total forcing at t, and 'I' is the previous imbalance caused by past variations in forcing that had not yet been fully restored at t1.
63390. Pierre-Normand at 12:27 PM on 20 February 2012
       Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
       Sorry, Ken Lambert. You are right. I had thought the 1W/m^2 variation in TSI that I had found was TOA. This is indeed rather close to 0.25W/m^2. You say that you are considering the warming imbalance from all effects. But is the modelled 0.9 to 1 W/m^2 that you mentioned based retrospectively on the true (estimated) forcings or was it produced by the models as an ensemble average?
63391. Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam @57, very briefly: 1) The other graphs shown by Monckton all appear to be local, not global temperatures, and therefore cannot show a global event; 2) Those graphs differ from each other about the timing of peak warming, with some graphs showing significant cooling where others show peak warming. This is most obvious with the graph purported to be from Dansgaard and from Schonweise (diferent papers) which shows a MWP preceding 1000 AD and a LIA that finishes around 1500 AD. Therefore if you constructed a global proxy form the data in those graphs, the periods of peak warming would be significantly reduced compared to that shown on the individual graphs, and hence significantly reduced relative to today (which truly is a global warming). 3) One of the proxies (Esper and Schweingruber) shows not temperatures but altitudes of the tree line. Using the standard lapse rate to convert the altitude difference to a temperature difference shows a temperature difference of 0.23 degrees C above the reference for the MWP. As this is much less than the difference in Mean Global Surface Temperatures between 1980 (the apparent termination of the graph data) and the present, the graph does not show what Monckton purports. 4) Monckton's errors are too frequent and too persistent to be considered accidental. Further, when his attention was drawn to them, he did not resile from any of his claims with regard to these temperature graphs (see his response to Abraham). Therefore by his own standard (also stated in his response to Abraham) these are not mistakes, but lies. 5) It is evident that people viewing this collection of graphs from the audience of the presentation would not have been in a position to make these detailed comparisons. Therefore Monckton's presentation of these graphs had the likely and probably calculated effect of deceiving the audience. 6) And leaving aside the MWP, there is little point in your persistently asking me to read something that I have already read. 7) I notice you declined my request to discuss Abraham (or Monckton's) presentation slide by slide. Your response to that request was to cite the entire discussion of sea level rise, which occupies three slides in Monkcton's presentation, and five slides in Abraham's original presentation. Your disinclination to discuss the actual nuts and bolts of the dispute is duly noted. 8) I note that you persist in misrepresenting Al Gore as claiming that sea levels would rise by six meters in a century. In this you follow Monckton who "quotes" Al Gore as saying:

       " “Right, the melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are going to raise sea level by 20 feet imminently.”

       (25 minutes, 41 seconds on the tape) Would you kindly point out where in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says that? (Hint: He doesn't) Why is it that Monckton seems reticent to quote anybodies exact words? Why does he present his "paraphrases" as though they were exact quotations? And why do his paraphrases change the original meanings of the quotes repeatedly?
63392. From Peru at 12:22 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       To moderator: the rescaling of the images does not work, it breaks the link to the third image instead. The source of the disturbing map (widespread flooding during the PETM) is here: Physical Oceanography & Climate Dynamics Winguth's Webpage
63393. actually thoughtful at 12:21 PM on 20 February 2012
       Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
       From the original post (just above first graphic): "It puts paid to wishful thinking-based claims that global warming has halted." - what does "It puts paid" mean? I am not familiar with this turn of phrase. Sphaerica @ 22 - when I first read your post at 17 I thought what you did at 22 - that La Nina would be the worst case (ie .5C +/-.43 is the most we will see, not the least). However, while this paper is based on the ARGO network, the authors also included land and atmosphere - so they are really stating that the .5C is where we are at and it is La Nina/El Nino independent. I presume that number will get revised up as the balance of evidence suggests a higher number. Am I missing something in reading it in this manner?
63394. From Peru at 12:18 PM on 20 February 2012
       Global Extinction: Gradual Doom as Bad as Abrupt
       As the old saying says: The peoples that forgot their own history are doomed to repeat it... History like the deadly transitions: Permian/Triassic Paleocene/Eocene All due to huge releases of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and CH4 ... This(current global warming) is the worst mass dying occurring in tens of millions of years. The deniers, the polluters, the corrupted politicians are doing everything they can to have their hands stained forever in blood(or I should say H2S emitting purple-sulfur bacteria slime?)... We must stop them. If we don't, I am afraid we deserve to become extinct like most therapsids (mammal-like reptiles)after the Permian/Triassic event.
63395. scaddenp at 12:03 PM on 20 February 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7
       Hijacking is annoying but just a variation of "off topic". Like "trolling" it is rather subjective. Heavy-handed use would silence debate that should be happening. What would be better would be an easy way for moderation to move an offtopic hijack attempt to a more appropriate thread.
63396. Philippe Chantreau at 11:59 AM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Funglestrumpet, a wide range of Monckton's BS is addressed by Peter Hadfield and very well documented. See this SkS post and watch the videos, they are very informative. I really mean that: take the time to watch. I find it far more damning than anything done by Abraham, Dennis or SkS. As I said earlier, the part where Monckton does that little speech about how Dr Pinker is a great guy is really funny and says everything one needs to know about the individual. Used car salesman, snake oil merchant, take your pick for the stereotype that best matches his methods.
63397. Tom Curtis at 11:27 AM on 20 February 2012
       Medieval Warm Period was warmer
       Camburn and others, I refer you to this discussion of the issue by John Cook. It should be noted that solar forcing is not the only change of forcing during the MWP. In particular, unusually low volcanic eruptions contributed, particularly in the early twelth century. Elevated CO2 levels also contributed about 0.2 W/m^2, which is significant relative to other changes at the time. The argument is revisited in this blog post by dana1981. Based on Crowly 2010, net radiative forcing in the MWP was < 1 W/m^2 greater than during the LIA. As 1750 had significantly higher radiative forcing than was typical of the LIA, this means that MWP radiative forcings are significantly less than current radiative forcings relative to the LIA. It follows that if the MWP was warmer than at present globally, climate sensitivity is greater than currently believed, and we have significantly more warming in the pipeline than currently expected.
63398. John Hartz at 11:24 AM on 20 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Given the conscerns expressed about Adam's posting habits, I posed the following question in the Issue of the Week section of the 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7. "Should the SkS Comment Policy be amended to explicitly prohibit the hi-jacking of a comment thread by an individual commentator?" Please respond to this question in the comment thread to Weekly Digest #7.
63399. kaustubh at 11:20 AM on 20 February 2012
       Fred Singer Denies Global Warming
       Riccardo, I would trust paleoclimate proxies more than reanalysis or gridded temperature products for pre-1950 data. Proxies may not have spatial coverage, but they are remarkable in their being reproducible and repeatable. The issue here is NOT that Singer trusts proxy data over instrumental data. The issue is that proxies DO IN FACT show the 20th century warming signal. Here is a blog post where I compile a short list of papers where the authors discover 20th century warming in their paleoclimate proxies: http://paleowave.blogspot.com/2012/02/proxy-evidence-for-recent-warming.html
63400. Riccardo at 11:01 AM on 20 February 2012
       The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
       There has been several ups and downs of the sea level in the last few days which average to zero. So the lowering of the sea level in the last couple of hours must have a different cause. Or not?

Prev  1260  1261  1262  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  Next