Recent Comments

Prev  1298  1299  1300  1301  1302  1303  1304  1305  1306  1307  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  Next

Comments 65251 to 65300:

65251. muoncounter at 05:15 AM on 29 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       pirate#71: "Environmental Science teachers have 18-27 days to cover the Global Change" You quote only one section (Section VII Global Change) from the AP Environmental Science course description. Sections I (Earth systems), II (The Living World), IV (Land and Water Use), V (Energy Resources and consumption) and VI (Pollution) all have topics that could be thematically tied to issues of climate change. So this 'time limitation' you claim is your choice: It is often known as 'teaching to the test.' In the US, Advanced Placement courses typically expect a higher level of work than is the case in 'regular' or even 'advanced' high school subjects. AP EnvSci is designed to be the equivalent of a one semester, introductory college course in environmental science. How difficult would it be to assign research problems throughout the year that tie the course to a unifying theme - man's impact on the environment, for example? As a result, you would not be tied to these time limits. But you have to see the need to do that.
65252. Stephen Baines at 04:59 AM on 29 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Pirate, To provide a specific example in support of DB's assessment, after I made the following comment "More generally, when thinking of biodiversity loss, it's very hard to make a credible argument that changing climate will not, on average, have a net negative influence on the persistence of species..." You responded with "I have no objection to your last paragraph. I think your rationale is accurate and would not pose an argument to it. Some will benefit, some will suffer. But, as we know things now, they will certainly change. " (my emphasis) You claim to agree with what I say, but then restate my position so that it no longer resembles what I initially wrote. I can't tell if this is unconscious or not on your part. But I can tell you that it's maddening! Given the dissembling that is common about the web on this topic, it is easy to believe you are dissembling yourself. As for your last comment, I actually empathise with the plight of science teachers regarding text books. People are generally too quick to blame teachers for insufficiencies in science education. I think systemic problems play a key role as well. Teachers are often caught between teaching to standards on which they are strictly evaluated, and having to pick books from a limited selection that are in turn heavily influenced by the peculiar politics of one particular state. These factors place a serious constraint on time and resources available to delve into topics in depth in ways that promote critical thinking.
65253. muoncounter at 04:57 AM on 29 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       adelady#70: I looked through all of that information on desmogblog. They quote the LA Times article; they do not provide any new information about specific education policy. The money trail and influence-buying is certainly a web of corruption. I suspect that we will be drowned in new policy initiatives after the state education board elections in November.
65254. John Hartz at 04:36 AM on 29 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       @Daniel Bailey: With all due respect, I am one SkS author who continues to take apiratelooksat50 seriously. I know from personal experince (which predates Pirate's posting on SkS) that interacting with him can at times be very exasperating. I also know from personal experience that when I let my emotions take control, I over-react to what people post on a comment thread and invariably get into a heated exchange with them. As someone who has closely followed the recent exhanges between Pirate and SkS moderators/authors, I urge you all of you to leave your emotions at the door and stick to a straight-forward objective discussion of the issues at hand. Easier said than done, eh!
65255. Rob Painting at 04:31 AM on 29 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Victull @27 - Joe the Scientist has gone over this but...... Yes, ENSO (La Nina/El Nino) is a cool/warm natural cycle. It is mainly a re-distribution of heat already within the system,.i.e the ocean either storing the heat below the surface layers (La Nina), or the heat rising up to the surface and spreading out across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean (El Nino). See the animation linked to in the post. When all that cool water is at the surface during La Nina, it exchanges heat with the atmosphere, but being cooler water, it leads to a temporary drop in global temperature. But now that cool water is at the surface, it gets heated by sunlight. Deep water that was once cool now warms up so the ocean gains a considerable amount of energy. In effect we have heat still stored in the subsurface layers in the western tropical Pacific, and the cool upwelled water along the west coast of the American continent being warmed by the sun. In addition, the cooler ocean surface leads to less evaporation which leads to less cloud cover which means more sunlight is able to reach the ocean surface. Understandably the oceans are going to soak up a lot of heat. During El Nino, of course, a fair chunk of that heat stored in the ocean is given up to the atmosphere (see figure 3), global temperatures rise rapidly and a lot of that heat is lost out to space. This cyclic ENSO phenomenon has been around for a very long time, many millions of years at the very least. It was once thought that the Pliocene (around 2-5 million years ago) saw a permanent El Nino, but recent research indicates that our friend ENSO was still doing it's thing then too, and may in fact stretch back tens of millions of years. Current global warming on the other hand has only been around a short time - since the start of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750), a time when humans started to fundamentally alter the composition of the ocean and atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. All this manmade CO2 creates a small but persistent annual warming trend. Prior to the Industrial Revolution i.e. the natural pristine climate would have been something like this: In the absence of any climatic 'nudge' the climate would not undergo any net long-term warming or cooling because ENSO (and the 11-year solar cycle) average out to zero. With increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning (global warming) this changes things. That cyclic ENSO is now superimposed upon top of a rising trend. Of course in the real world these cycles are not regular as in these diagrams, that's just for illustrative purposes. That's how it might appear if we were to plot temperatures on a graph, but what we would actually experience are periods of slow or negligible global warming, followed by periods of rapid global warming (as the NASA scientists expect). So quick/slow/quick/slow..........and so on and so forth. Again, not every cycle will be the same, there is likely to be significant variability. This variability is apparent in every climate model run that I have ever seen. You may perhaps have seen it too, but may not have grasped its significance. Anyway hope this clears up your confusion. Current global warming intersperses periods of little warming with periods of rapid warming because the natural cool/warm oscillations are superimposed on a warming trend. At times it reinforces the warming trend (warm phase), and at other times it works against it (cool phase). This is nothing unexpected, however predicting the timing and intensity in well in advance is difficult. However as those eminent NASA scientists point out, the evidence strongly suggests a rapid global warming phase is near.
65256. KR at 04:30 AM on 29 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       Sapient Fridge - That article in the "The Australian" appears to refer to the Schmittner et al 2011 paper discussed here. Their mean sensitivity value is a bit lower than the current IPCC estimate, while their lower value is in part due to a rather warmer Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) temperature estimate than is usually used.
65257. apiratelooksat50 at 04:21 AM on 29 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Sphaerica at 66 and 67 Teachers are provided a selection of textbooks to choose from. We review and make recommendations to the District Office on the one we want to adopt. We make that decision based on accuracy of information and the accompanying materials. I personally do not like our current textbook and opted for another publisher. I do not know how the other Env. Sci. teachers in the district voted, but regardless we did not get new books due to budget issues. As a good teacher, I can only affect what textbooks are selected to a certain degree. The citizens of the state can put pressure on local schoolboards more effectively. Heck, I'm pretty sure at least one of SKS moderators who has posted in this thread lives in this state and could take a role as a taxpaying citizen in textbook adoption.
65258. Daniel Bailey at 04:16 AM on 29 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Perhaps you find the statement close to the mark then. This all stems from your earlier comment which was a context-free quote from a textbook. It was pointed out to you the fallacy of the statement without the context the science provides. Apirate, the reason you are not taken seriously here anymore is illustrated in the exchanges on this thread: You continually post from a position of preconception and ignore or downplay that which contradicts that position. That is not science, it is ideology. To teach science from that standpoint is an abomination.
65259. apiratelooksat50 at 04:07 AM on 29 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       DB at 65 You have no idea what I provide in my classroom, therefore your statement is patently false and offensive. Regardless of my position on this issue, I teach the students what is in the textbook since that is what they will be tested on. Then we augment that with current events, research papers, moderated debates, position papers, etc... FYI - SKS is on their provided list of websites to access for information. We are limited by time since there is a curriculum pacing guide we have to follow. We have 180 days with students in the classroom. Some of those days are spent on testing and others on administrative tasks. Following is an excerpt from the AP Environmental Syllabus which can be found in its entirety here. NOTE: Question #2 in the Sample Free Response Questions is about climate change. You might find it interesting. VII. Global Change (10–15%) A. Stratospheric Ozone (Formation of stratospheric ozone; ultraviolet radiation; causes of ozone depletion; effects of ozone depletion; strategies for reducing ozone depletion; relevant laws and treaties) B. Global Warming (Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect; impacts and consequences of global warming; reducing climate change; relevant laws and treaties) C. Loss of Biodiversity 1. Habitat loss; overuse; pollution; introduced species; endangered and extinct species 2. Maintenance through conservation 3. Relevant laws and treaties So, at best, Environmental Science teachers have 18-27 days to cover the Global Change section (of which global warming is only part) since the students are assessed on the entire breadth of the course.
65260. Sapient Fridge at 03:06 AM on 29 January 2012
       Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
       JoeTheScientist@2 You mean like the bruising El Nino that won the argument in 1998? Hmm, something wrong there... All that would happen is that the "skeptics" would claim it was a freak event, then they would use it as the start point of their graphs for the next decade to show falling temperatures.
65261. JoeTheScientist at 02:41 AM on 29 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       victull@15, The ENSO cycle is temporal variation in energy distribution, not a spatial one. Warmer water and air at the SURFACE is balanced by cooler water and air at the SURFACE some-when else. @27 ENSO has been around for a very long time, certainly throughout the industrial era. Since it existed early in the industrial era when the impact of GHGs on the atmosphere was very small, there is no reason to believe it did not exist before industrial emissions. Complaining about Rob@18's two statements: Sure, ENSO does not make a net contribution to long term anthropogenic greenhouse gas-induced warming, and technically, the "globe" actually cools during an El Nino. However, when an El Nino comes along, it makes the global surface temperature rise sharply. Surface temperature is the usual benchmark for "global warming", so colloquially speaking, the El Nino will "increase global warming". Obviously you understand the distinction between CO2-driven global warming and El Nino-driven surface warming, but if you try to get technical with the average reader and force them to understand that distinction, you'll probably just confuse them. (No offense.)
65262. mlyle at 02:04 AM on 29 January 2012
       Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
       Joe-- Wrong wish. Unfortunately this is not a football game but our world. The best strategy is to keep focusing on the facts and their outcomes.
65263. JoeTheScientist at 01:50 AM on 29 January 2012
       Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
       (Oh how I wish the La Nina would end and give us a bruising El Nino. We need some stark new temperature highs to help win the argument.)
65264. Sapient Fridge at 00:42 AM on 29 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       Apologies for following up my own post, but I think "The Australian" article being quoted by the chap at 00:50:29 was this one.
65265. Sapient Fridge at 00:32 AM on 29 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       jimspy@2 There are 3 "skeptic" questions in the video, and one which is slight ambiguous. 00:36:34 A chap (D. Weston Allen) asks why mistakes and exaggerations made by climate scientists supporting AGW are ignored. He also pushes his book in which he claims he identifies mistakes made by Tim Flannery. 00:43:06 This rather verbose questioner says we're living in an age of unreason and seems to think it's all propaganda. He takes issue people saying "carbon" rather than "carbon dioxide" and with people switching from saying "global warming" to "climate change". 00:50:29 This question is asked by a chap with a copy of "The Australian" with him saying that scientists have published a papers showing climate sensitivity is much lower than previously thought. I think it refers to the science paper addressed here. 1:04:00 This one is a little ambiguous as the question is asking what John thinks about papers being released before peer review e.g. the BEST paper. I include it because I think the source of that meme is the WUWT web site.
65266. victull at 23:20 PM on 28 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       phila@21, rob painting@18, kr@17 kr@17, you seem to suggest that ENSO is a cyclical external forcing which opens and closes a heat absorption window on the TOA imbalance. ie a cycle driving a rising trend line. Did ENSO exist prior to the industrial release of CO2 and other GHG when there was no TOA imbalance due to GHG? I looked at your link to SKS post "Deep ocean warms etc ..and ran aground on the long posts by David Lewis which opened up the Hansen - Trenberth differences on warming magnitude. Rob@18 You have explained @9 and in the post that ENSO as a cyclical phenomenon which does not contribute to a long term trend. This is difficult to reconcile with you post title "NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future" as the La Nina comes to an end. It is not global warming if heat already sequestered in the oceans is given up to the atmosphere in an internal ENSO cycle. It is heat transfer from one part of the system to another. El Nino air temperatures may rise a lot more than sea temperatures cool, but the reverse occurs when La Nina returns. phila@21 I don't have a problem understanding heat exchange between the surface waters (down to 500-700m) and the atmosphere but when heat is given up to much deeper cool waters - the return path is much less clear to me. This has nothing to do with accepting that the oceans are absorbing a trend increase of about 0.5Wm-2. That means that the TOA imbalance exists and so does global warming. It seems that the 0.5 is much closer to the Hansen number which he suggests is due to models overestimation of ocean heat absorption and more aerosols - lukewarm - not so hot as Trenberth.
65267. CBDunkerson at 23:11 PM on 28 January 2012
       Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
       Hayhoe's comment about 'politics informing religion' is something I've been concerned about for a long time. Many 'conservatives' in the United States rail against and continually work to undermine the constitutional separation of church and state... because they don't seem to understand that it is just as important to protect religion from being corrupted by politics as vice versa. Dr. Hayhoe is to be commended for recognizing and standing up against the perversion of her faith into a political tool, but I fear she will find it is more the norm than an anomaly in this country.
65268. alan_marshall at 19:30 PM on 28 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Rob, Thanks for a great post. Very lucid. Scientists in the past have been reticent (at least publicly) in linking global warming with El Nino / La Nina. Now for the first time it is crystal clear to me how these phenomena interact. Hopefully analyses such as this will help disarm the myth about global warming slowing or stopping.
65269. sidd at 17:20 PM on 28 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       Mr. Esop writes at 22:03 PM on the 27th of January, 2012: "At Longyearbyen, Svalbard (close to 80 degs latitude), it is raining as we speak. On January 27th. Average temp for the last 30 days is 17F above the normal" This has been my fear for some years, that ocean heat will rise up and rain down upon the ice sheets. Are there timely (radar?) images available showing arctic rain ? Prof. Maurice Pelto wrote at 4:18 AM on the 28th of January, 2012: "The increased open water and warmer air have sure impacted the glaciers on Arctic islands such as Svalbard and Novaya Zemyla" Thank you. I would love pointers to more reports from the northernmost land areas such Franz Josef Land, Severnaya Zemlya, Ellesmere, and Peary Land. sidd
65270. Michael Whittemore at 16:01 PM on 28 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       Doug H@4 I agree that the cost will be far more if we don't do anything, I live in Brisbane and these 50 year floods are looking more like annual floods now. But my point was directed to John Cook and how he some what brushed aside the cost of a carbon tax due to compensation. The truth is this tax will cost us a fortune, no compensation and $100 a tonne carbon cost. My simple solution (not really thought through) would only be a start, but would not cause so much hardship for everyday people.
65271. Doug Hutcheson at 15:07 PM on 28 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       I learned a thing or two by watching the video, so thank you for that. The comments by the chap who followed you were on the money, too, but it is depressing how they will be dismissed as "left wing propaganda" by the denialisti. Michael@3 I expect that any government attempting your remedy would be committing political suicide, attractive though the approach might be. The Carbon Trading Scheme legislated in Australia offers industry some motivation to overcome the inertia of change, but we have to keep in mind that we as individuals will be paying an enormous price in the future, if we don't act now. All the people complaining that the CTS is going to cost them money are ignoring the cost to them and their children if we let the climate run out of control. Pay something now, or risk losing everything later if the worst-case scenario plays out. The climate has no ideology and doesn't care which way we vote - it is going to do what we are forcing it to do, whether we like it or not.
65272. michael sweet at 12:48 PM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, In one of your deleted posts you suggest that I said local sea level rise at Tuvalu could be 5 feet. That is the Global Sea level rise scientists expect in the next 90 years. The IPCC estimate was a minimum increase, not an expected increase. Why are you unable to understand the most basic facts??? The regional anomaly is interesting but not at all important to future projections. Focus on the global estimates which are much more important. The problem in Tuvalu is not that they have a high local anomaly, the problem is that Global Sea Level rise is expected to overtop them this century. In your posts you frequently refer to global estimates as if they were local estimates and visa versa. You will find people more helpful if you stop making assertions about things you do not understand and ask questions to help you clear up your lack of basic knowledge. Carefully read the responses so that you stop repeating the same incorrect premises.
65273. Albatross at 11:52 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, FWIW, I have a PhD in meteorology. But that is irrelevant. I find your stance on professional qualifications condescending and offensive-- one does not need scientific qualifications to understand the post, just intelligence, an open mind and an eagerness to learn and to actually read the papers. Moreover, you are arguing against the many professional and respected researchers (e.g., Church) who making studying SLR their business, so you are the one railing against the professionals. But since you brought it up what are your qualifications and in which field? You post/rant was probably deleted (not by me) b/c it violated the comments policy. You might want to read them again, references to "religious cults" tend to get deleted. As for being respectful, I suggest that you respect the advice and read the papers cited by professionals on this thread, and not suggest that you are superior to people posting here. I'm sorry you feel that maligned, but truth is that you largely brought it on yourself, and your rant that was deleted was very revealing. Look up Dunning-kruger effect some time.
       Response:

       [DB] Please refrain from buying in to being dragged off-topic.  Tealy is trolling with his questioning of credentials.  Tealy has demonstrated the need to being tightly moderated, which he will receive until his comments conform to the Comments Policy.

65274. Michael Whittemore at 11:39 AM on 28 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       Carbon Tax Compensation I heard will only last for 5 years, then the price on carbon becomes market driven. It will start around $25 a tonne but can go up to $50 even $100. We will have to pay for that. A better option would be to just force power companies to develop green infrastructure. Give them a little compensation to make the transition but that's it. Within a decade or two electricity will be so cheap, electric cars will be a must.
65275. Tealy at 11:35 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       What happened to my previous post?
       Response:

       [DB] Your previous comment was moderated out due to multiple violations of the Comments Policy.  Specifically, inflammatory and ideology.  Again, please construct your comments to both comply with the policy and also be on-topic to the post on which you are placing the comment.

65276. michael sweet at 11:15 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, As I pointed out to you here, the regional rise at Tuvalu is only about 2 cm per decade. This newspaper article documents a temporary 60 cm rise in sea level on the US East coast caused by changing currents. The data supports the idea that the current small excess at Tuvalu could continue for at least several more decades. The sea level rise world wide is expected to be far in excess of 5 mm/yr in two decades so we expect the current rise at Tuvalu to increase, not decrease. If you read my post to you you would not make the same claim over and over. If you read the background material you will stop making such absurd claims.
65277. Albatross at 11:08 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Regarding this claim: "I have only ever tried to discuss zonal tilting or regional variations" Now that is not entirely true. 18:43 PM on 26 January, 2012: "ice melt is the lesser component of sea level rise and sea based ice contributes zero to sea level rise (Archmedes) only land based ice does. 21:24 PM on 26 January, 2012: "People say it's ice melting rise because as it's something they can see and touch, but it's a misnomer that should not be propagated. It's wrong, its patronising, and it destroys credibility to change the facts in the belief people wouldn't have understood." 23:39 PM on 27 January, 2012: "If you would like more detail here is the IPCC website showing 6 climate models of sea level rise from 2000 to 2100, and all 6 models show thermal expansion is the greater component of sea level rise accounting for about 2/3 of the total rise." 10:30 AM on 28 January, 2012: "...remember much of antarctica is very sub zero, sub zero ice still absorbs the heat, produces no melt and no sea level rise. You just get warmer sub zero ice. If you don't understand all this, then you don't have any relevant qualifications and I might as well be debating it with my barissta, at least I will get a coffee in the process. " Just a few examples demonstrating that the initial quote above is demonstrably false. Like others, I suggest that the misguide poster listen and read more before pontificating. "I have searched all through the website and find lots of articles on SLR, but very little on the zonal tilting or regional differences.In fact zonal tilting got zero hits!" That "zonal tilting" yielded zero hits should be a big clue that they are barking up the wrong tree.
65278. Albatross at 10:49 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       I addressed the following misguided claim and incorrect in my post at 66: "Tuvalu is caused by trade winds increase (that were possibly caused by global warming) then there would be a limit to this rise as the trade winds cannot just keep intensifying forever as the arcticle implied." No-one suggested this, but I now see how the confusion might have arisen for those who are not familiar with the climate system-- we are not dealing with a one-to-one relationship, nor are we dealing with a linear system, nor are we dealing with runaway warming. So no-one is suggesting that the winds will simply continue to increase ad infinitum. Again, from Cazenave and Remy (2011): "The spatial trend patterns evidenced over the altimetry period mostly result from nonuniform steric sea level changes (effects of ocean temperature and salinity), largely caused by wind‐driven ocean circulation changes. Such patterns are not stationary but oscillate through time on decadal/multidecadal time scale, in response to natural modes of the coupled ocean‐atmosphere system." These spatial patterns are not stationary, they are oscillations, no-one except our misguided poster is suggesting that they will increase ad infinitum. It is these oscillations that when superimposed on the underlying systematic increasing trend will either accentuate or mute the underlying trend.
65279. Rob Painting at 10:44 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Albatross - "It is getting rather tiresome having certain people talking through their hats. Indeed, but other moderators have seen fit to tolerate this trolling. This person isn't here to learn, but to spray graffiti. I was hoping by now others would have stepped in to warn this person, being personally involved myself it's against the rules for me to do so.
65280. Albatross at 10:38 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       It is getting rather tiresome having certain people talking through their hats. This is another false assertion made by our misguided poster, "The IPCC report is for the current period as we are in 2012." The fourth assessment report was published back in 2007, that was five years ago. And some of the papers they cited were published in 2006 or earlier. Science moves on, data observations systems improve... Discussion about the mechanisms/theory of how land ice is being lost from Antarctica should be taken to a more appropriate thread. The data from Church et al. (2011) shown @63 above indicate that the loss of ice form the Antarctic ice sheet is increasing. On how this is happening is very interesting (albeit disturbing) and perfectly plausible and consistent with what we know about ice sheet behaviour and thermodynamics. But as I said, that needs to be discussed on another thread. Might I suggest this thread.
65281. Tealy at 10:34 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       I have only ever tried to discuss zonal tilting or regional variations. If in doubt read my posts. Start from the beginning and read my posts.
       Response:

       [DB] As Albatross has seen fit to rebut in exquisite detail (both before and after this comment), you are wrong and therefore need to re-read your own comments.

65282. Tealy at 10:30 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Albatross my original post was if the regional anomaly rise near Tuvalu is caused by trade winds increase (that were possibly caused by global warming) then there would be a limit to this rise as the trade winds cannot just keep intensifying forever as the arcticle implied. You would finish up with hurricane trade winds. Somehow people have gone off in all sorts of directions from that with all sorts of other quotations and citations.
       Response:

       [DB] "Somehow people have gone off in all sorts of directions from that with all sorts of other quotations and citations."

       Various participants, in a seemingly fruitless attempt to be helpful, have responded to the many and various misconceptions you have espoused.  Misconceptions that have nearly dragged this thread off-topic.  But no more.

       You have been pointed out to be wrong now on multiple occasions on multiple, specific subjects.  You then turn to complaints about how you are being treated.  Desist.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

65283. Albatross at 10:24 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Rob and Michael, One last post that speaks to causes of the regional changes in SLR and the relative contributions from thermal expansion and land ice. I also keep forgetting to mention that the backdrop of this post is that to this day some "skeptics" claim that sea levels around Tuvalu are either not increasing or that SLR it is not an issue, well it clearly is and will very likely get worse. Cazenave and Remy (2011) just published a paper, they conclude: "Moreover, sea level rates are not geographically uniform; in some regions like the tropical western Pacific, rates are up to 3–4 times higher than the global mean rate. We next discuss the climate‐related components of the global mean sea level rise. Over the last ∼18‐years, ocean thermal expansion contributes about one third to the observed rise while total land ice (glacier melting plus ice sheet mass loss) contribute the other two third. The spatial trend patterns evidenced over the altimetry period mostly result from nonuniform steric sea level changes (effects of ocean temperature and salinity), largely caused by wind‐driven ocean circulation changes. Such patterns are not stationary but oscillate through time on decadal/multidecadal time scale, in response to natural modes of the coupled ocean‐atmosphere system." So we now have three recent papers refuting the claim that the contribution until now has been greater than that from land ice. The misguided poster clearly misrepresented the science presented in the IPCC fourth assessment report in 2007. One does not need ever increasing easterly winds in the tropical Pacific for Tuvalu and surrounding islands to be in trouble as our misguide poster seems to think. As noted before, La nina years will become increasingly problematic in future years for Tuvalu. Additionally Willis and Leuliette (2011) [and others, e.g., Rignot et al (2011)] note that: "Furthermore, if the rate of global sea level rise continues to accelerate over the next century, it is likely that the primary cause will be increased melting and mass loss from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica".
65284. adelady at 10:19 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       muoncounter 'I can't find any first-hand source for the story about new Texas education standards.' Perhaps some of what you're after might be found here at Desmogblog
65285. Tealy at 10:18 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       If i am going to be challeneged iin such a way i will use the most established most peer reviewed source, th IPCC. While there are other reports these do not have the backing of th IPCC. They may in time but I am not going to be accused of using obscure reports. The IPCC report is for the current period as we are in 2012. I read RB citation of Leuliette et al, and all I gleaned was comparison the heat of formation of ice for the same heat to cause expansion of water. You could arrive at that from a table of material properties. They did not say ice was melting more. Note this, they did not say that. Quote what they actually said? They did not say how if the heat was put into ice, that heat would be isolated into only melting ice, and not into warming sub zero ice that results in no melt .ie remember much of antarctica is very sub zero, sub zero ice still absorbs the heat, produces no melt and no sea level rise. You just get warmer sub zero ice. (-snipIf you don't understand all this, then you don't have any relevant qualifications and I might as well be debating it with my barissta, at least I will get a coffee in the process.-)
       Response:

       [DB] "The IPCC report is for the current period as we are in 2012."

       No.  THe IPCC is a distillation and summary of the available literature at the time of the (AR4) report.  While certain sections contain modelled periods covering some aspects of the near future, they do not (as has been pointed out to you several times) properly address ice sheet contributions to sea level rise.  Said ice sheet losses are currently ongoing (as they were back in 2007, at the time of the AR4), and are increasing in volumes lost.

       To continue your prosecution of this fallacy is false and misleading.  Please desist.  And familiarize yourself with the Comments Policy.

       Inflammatory and derogatory snipped.

65286. Albatross at 10:11 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Rob, The misguided poster on this thread seems convinced that the reason for the increase in sea level is an increase in the easterly trade winds. This is only partly correct. Research has shown that since the nineties there has been an increase in the strength of the easterly winds in the western tropical Pacific has indeed been partly responsible for the increase in the sea level there-- in fact, SLR in that regions is 3-4 times greater than the global average in that region. But their claim fails to address the bigger picture. You cite Merrifield (2011). Merrifield published another paper in 2011 on this issue. But first let me set the stage by quoting from Merrifield (2011): "This sea-level trend shift in the western Pacific corresponds to an intensification of the easterly trade winds across the tropical Pacific. The wind change appears to be distinct from climate variations centered in the North Pacific, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation....The shifts in trade wind strength and western Pacific sea level rate resemble changes in dominant global modes of outgoing longwave radiation and sea surface temperature. It is speculated that the western Pacific sea level response indicates a general strengthening of the atmospheric circulation over the tropical Pacific since the early 1990s that has developed in concert with recent warming trends." So this paper suggests a positive feedback associated with global warming, with a general increasing trend in sea-level being amplified over the western tropical Pacific due to changes in the wind field possibly associated with AGW. Merrifield and Maltrud (2011) published another paper on this issue. This paper was highlighted in the EOS newspaper and they summarize the implications of the paper's findings as follows: "...using a general circulation model, Merrifield and Maltrud show that western tropical Pacific sea level trends are likely due to a gradual intensification of the Pacific trade winds in the past 2 decades. They also highlight other aspects of ocean circulation that have been altered in response to the intensifying trade winds. Some previous research has suggested that the trade wind intensification is a result of global warming, although that has yet to be verified. If that is the case, the authors conclude the western tropical Pacific sea level trends will likely continue to be anomalously high." Even if the trade winds do moderate, things are not looking good for Tuvalu, and down the road they could face serious issues during La Nina years when the long-term underlying trend will be amplified when water piles up in the western equatorial Pacific. In fact, they may be already experiencing problems on account of the current prolonged La Nina.
65287. Albatross at 09:45 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Rob and Michael, In addition to your excellent posts, let me try and clear up some of the confusion that is being sown a certain misguided and ill-informed poster. This thread is about Tuvalu sea levels, but the ill-informed poster has managed to derail the discussion in several directions. As I will demonstrate, for both 1972 to 2008 and for 1993 to 2008 the contribution to the total sea level rise from land ice exceeds that from the total thermal expansion contribution. The ill-informed poster seems to be confused about the difference between observations and projections when it comes to the relative contributions of the thermal and land ice to the total sea-level rise. Becker et al. (2011) use a combination of observations and model simulations to better understand what is happening with sea levels around tropical Pacific islands since 1950. So the focus is what has happened in the past. The ill-informed poster makes the mistake then of confusing observations with projections (that exclude contributions from dynamic land ice loss) and draws the conclusion that thermal contribution is greater than the contribution from land ice. This assertion is of course demonstrably false and not supported by the data. Rob you gave the example of Willis and Leuliette (2011). I will provide another, Church et al. (2011). Church et al. (2011) used observations to close the sea-level budget. Below is their Table 1 which summarizes the different contributions the sea level budget. Note that for both 1972 to 2008 and for 1993 to 2008 the contribution to the total sea level rise from land ice exceeds that from the total thermal expansion contribution. More so for the 1993-2008 window, reflecting the increasing importance of land ice over thermal expansion in the past 15 years or so to sea level rise.
65288. John Hartz at 09:30 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       This caught my eye: As usual, when we write about such efforts to muddy the scientific waters, there will be those who argue that we are "stifling debate" or silencing critics. We are not. We are asking that science education be based on an understanding of the science, not a reading of the latest opinion polls or the hyper-partisan political debates of the day. We don't teach our kids "two sides" of the debate on whether tobacco causes cancer (despite a long history of corporate efforts to sew doubt and encourage "debate" on that issue), so why would we kowtow to corporate misinformation on climate change too? Even the oil industry is planning for dangerous climate change. These backroom dealings are just attempts to delay the inevitable. Source: “How Oil Money is Corrupting Our Children's Education” by Sami Grover, Treehugger, Jan 27, 2012 To access the entire article, click here.
65289. jimspy at 09:18 AM on 28 January 2012
       Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
       For those of us who are short on time, can you give the time index of your confrontation with the "challengers"?
65290. Pete Dunkelberg at 08:56 AM on 28 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       At the street level many people are unaware or only vaguely aware that there is such a thing as climate data.
65291. Rob Painting at 08:20 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy - "Don't tell me, take your vitriol to the IPCC and tell them they got it all wrong and that it is "nonsense" No need to blame the IPCC, it's just [ snip ] You claimed that current thermal expansion is greater than the contribution of ice melt. You are wrong Tealy The citation I provided above - Leuliette & Willis (2011) - Balancing the Sea Level Budget, shows current ice melt contribution to sea level rise is double that of thermal expansion. When challenged you gave up [snip] . You are still doing so, as if the average reader will not cotton on to this. The 2007 IPCC report is a projection for the coming century which does not include the dynamical contributions of ice melt (as Michael Sweet also points out). They even state that in the reports you linked to. They did not include the ice melt contributions because it could not be adequately modeled at that time - it's still very uncertain even now. But we don't need models to understand that at a similar stage of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet cover - the Eemian interglacial - that warming saw rapid multi-meter century-scale rises in sea level. This is because the ice sheets 'collapsed'. If that happens this century,sea level rise at Tuvalu could be be far greater than the current 5.1 mm per year. In fact they could likely top 20mm per year by century's end, according to some estimates. Now just to be clear: Tealy, you were wrong when you asserted current thermal expansion was greater than ice melt. In fact if you even remotely understood the energy requirements needed to elevate sea level through expansion versus the energy required to melt land ice, I would not have to explain to you that you are wrong. But regardless, the observations show that you are wrong Citing the IPCC report about projected future rates of sea level rise, which exclude increased ice melt contribution, does not support your false assertion. How can they, they haven't happened yet anyway? Why does that simply fly by your cognitive filters?? The right thing to do here is to just admit none of this makes any sense to you because you [ snip ] waste people's time. This is clear by your continued repetition of false assertions throughout this thread. And by the way, the snipped portion in my previous comment wasn't an ad hominem, it was a description of an activity with the sole intent to waste people's time.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] These snips are indeed ad hominem. Please tone it down.
65292. michael sweet at 07:48 AM on 28 January 2012
       New temperature record for the Arctic in 2011
       Peter, The amount of heat that goes into melting ice is very small compared to the amount of heat that the ocean absorbs. This graphic has a small area at the bottom that includes the latent heat. It is not discussed very often because it is not a player in the major changes. If something like ocean currents starts to transport large amounts of heat to the Antarctic it could melt ice very quickly.
65293. muoncounter at 07:15 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       pirate#64: "Any teacher wanting to go more in-depth would have to own their own, but would be constrained by time." Some would say the textbook is a starting point, rather than an ending point. One could argue that a very valid 'critical thinking' exercise would be to ask how well the textbook agreed with current research. Of course, a teacher has to want to go more in-depth ... or want their students to question what is written in the textbook. Modeling that behavior may catch on; we could call it being 'skeptical' or some such. How hard could it be, given websites such as NCSE's Climate 101 and that other Skeptical whatchamacallit one. But if that's not what you might want, I suppose there's no reason to find the time.
65294. Bob Lacatena at 07:05 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       64, Pirate, In fact, a good teacher should look at those text books, go to the local and state boards of education, and stand up and say "We have a problem here, these books do not reflect the state of the science. We are teaching commercial instead of scientific positions and that's not what a school system should be doing. Knowledge and facts should not be for sale to the highest bidder, any more than political power should be (but is)."
65295. Bob Lacatena at 07:00 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       64, Pirate, Then the textbooks suck. Note that "some scientists" equals a handful of fringe scientists that honestly in any sane world would be discredited and dismissed. The way you cling to the denial tripe is just astounding. Even when you were shown that the very first of your misconceptions (the source of CO2 in the atmosphere) was false as a result of being purposely misled by denial propaganda, you still persist in believing only those end results that appeal to you (e.g. no extinctions have yet occurred due to climate change) and your thought process stops there. You "choose" what to teach, and give your students the option of "believing" what they choose, because you yourself have not and will not tackle the task of actually understanding that which you are supposed to teach, and that which you are so vocal about voicing an opinion. Please forgive my frustration with you, but you wasted my time by pretending to care about the science, while everything I sent was ignored and your reply would always consist of "what about..."? No matter how much information I gave explaining your fallacies, you said you had no time, but still trotted out more nonsense to consume my time. You are doing yourself, your community, and your students a grave disservice by carrying and promoting such a strongly held opinion from a position of extreme ignorance. That there are other people as misled and foolishly biased as you does not provide an adequate excuse. You are a teacher, and twenty years from today you will have to look in the mirror and take a healthy portion of the blame for the sort of world your students are going to have to live in -- and there will be no time machine that lets you go back and correct your errors.
65296. Daniel Bailey at 06:49 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       @ apiratelooksat50

       "You are making an assumption that has no basis. I did not leave anything out."

       Not the part missing from the text; that is understandably lacking. What is missing is the proper context (to which I referred) that is missing for students such as yours to be able to properly understand the text you reference. Since it was lacking from the text, it is your job as their educator to provide that context. By failing to provide that context you are biasing their education. Hence my concluding statement:

       "Thus, you continue to prosecute your agenda of manufactured doubt and delay. You dissemble."

65297. apiratelooksat50 at 06:41 AM on 28 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       DB at 62 You are making an assumption that has no basis. I did not leave anything out. As I stated that is from an Active Reading worksheet and is a direct cut/paste. I am simply showing what the textbook has in print. This is what the typical student sees and is taught and is assessed on. The textbook chapter and section pertaining to climate change goes further in depth, but is not up to date with the latest information as it was printed in 2008. The other textbooks we reviewed last year and considered for adoption offered very similar information. Any teacher wanting to go more in-depth would have to own their own, but would be constrained by time.
65298. Rob Painting at 05:35 AM on 28 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Actually Thoughtful - here's the thing, on the one hand you suggest people work things out for themselves, and on the other you say (as if speaking on behalf of most) that things are not clear. Do you see the rather large contradiction here? In fact your initial suggestion of letting people works things out for themselves actually invites people to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with "there be dragons" and other modern-day variants thereof - you know climate myths. We know for instance that many members of the public cannot wrap their heads around the fact that the scale and rate of climate change now happening far exceeds that of major extinction events in Earth's history. People hear that climate has changed in the past and fall for this simple-minded propaganda. This distortion of the truth has to be continually corrected. There is no point in relying upon the man or woman in the street to work things out for themselves - they get the bulk of their misinformation and myths from the mainstream media. "I find this statement incredibly elitist:" Who cares? That's a subjective interpretation you have chosen to apply. Are you now suggesting that the general public is well-acquainted with climate science? Many a poll suggests that that isn't the case. " If you don't understand why people are confused by short term weather patterns" Many people are confused on a great many things, especially when it comes to climate science. But I don't confuse an attempt at trolling (casting doubt in this case) by several individuals as indicative of what people might think in general, and there is certainly no way to correct confusion in one blog post. Now it's just me, but I think it might be useful for the general public to understand the reasons why we are likely to get rapid global warming over the next 2-4 years (or thereabouts). Maybe when it happens a light bulb will go off in their heads and they'll remember "Hang on, there was some NASA scientists that said this was going to happen, and it's because of the solar cycle and El Nino!" That would be preferable to the alternative of filling knowledge gaps with myths.
65299. michael sweet at 05:14 AM on 28 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, Everyone knows that the IPCC estimates specificly omit ice melt from the great ice sheets. they leave out the greatest contributator to sea level rise. You need to read the background so that you don't make these basic mistakes. The citations you have ignored detail these errors.
65300. actually thoughtful at 04:58 AM on 28 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       I wrote this one before, it appears to have gone missing. Rob Painting - your reply to me relies on part 2, which as of this writing, is not available. The concerns raised by some posters here indicate that part 1 may not be able to stand on its own. While you are welcome to your opinion - I find this statement incredibly elitist: "The woman and man in the street isn't going to be able to make sense of the observations, especially with distortions by fake-skeptics. That's why we exist - to communicate this information in a, hopefully, comprehensible manner. To expect a public audience to be able to process this information without guidance is foolish." At the end of your reply to me you mention there is no nuance. If you don't understand why people are confused by short term weather patterns, that could be a root cause of why this post is getting so many responses of the "there be dragons" type.

Prev  1298  1299  1300  1301  1302  1303  1304  1305  1306  1307  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  Next