Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Alternative approach to assessing climate risks by Peter Lang

0
0

What’s going on?

This thread, which is about how to provide more relevant information about climate change and its potential consequences, has attracted only 53 comments so far. Yet, two posts about Antarctic ice in the past few days which are basically irrelevant for policy decision about climate science unless the risks can be stated (which so far they have not been), have attracted over 700 comments so far.

This tells a lot. It tells me that the contributors here are more interested in arguing about temperatures and other irrelevancies than in discussing what to do about what many argue to be a catastrophe in the making.

Why would that be?


Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by curryja

0
0

David, do your homework; I’ve done mine. the Wikipedia sums it up nicely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography):

Argo data result errors

During 2006, the Argo Network was thought to have shown a declining trend in ocean temperatures.[9] In February 2007, the author of the paper, Josh Willis, discovered that there were problems with the data used for the analysis.[10] After eliminating incorrect data, the trend to that time remained cooling, but below the level of statistical significance.[3]

Data results from year 2008 and after

Takmeng Wong and Bruce A. Wielicki published a paper on the Argo data corrections in the NASA journal “The Earth Observer, 20(1), 16-19″.[11] Josh Willis, in an article published on the NASA Earth Observatory web site states that after correcting the errors in the Argo thermometer measurements, the results show that the world’s oceans have been absorbing additional energy and have been warming.[3][10]Rebecca Lindsey (November 5, 2008). “Correcting Ocean Cooling”.

See also this article:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011-print.pdf

The point is that interpreting the ARGO data is a work in progress, and systematic errors cannot be ruled out.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Judy,

I like the Guardian’s photo. I hope you do too. The colors in the glasses has a nice psychedelic tone, which is always cool for scientists to have.

Onto Dana’s points.

His first point is that the Rose’s main claim has been fabricated. His second point is that Rose’s OP went viral in the echo chamber. His third point is that focusing on the last 15 years might look like a trick. His fourth point is that the concept of warming should not be reserved to good old atmospheric metric.

Et cetera. Instead of reading the article for you, I believe the summary is a good place to start addressing Dana’s points:

To sum up, Rose and Curry were simply incorrect in virtually every assertion made in this Daily Mail article.

Global surface temperatures have most likely increased since 1997.

Focusing on short-term temperature changes confuses short-term noise and long-term signal.

Most global warming goes into heating the oceans, and as Nuccitelli et al. (2012) showed, global warming has not slowed.

Natural variability is much smaller than the long-term global warming signal, and smaller even than the global warming signal over the past two decades.

The slowed rate of global surface warming over the past decade is consistent with individual model runs, which show that these ‘hiatus decades’ are entirely expected.

Over the long-term, the Earth has warmed as much as expected.

Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences.

I will save myself the effort to look how your OP stands to most of this, and instead suggest you to respond to all the points in a way that all your points are connected together into a comprehensive whole. That way, it would be less easy to pick the hanging fruits into your argument, and your overall argumentation will gain in modularity.

***

Oh, and I believe that Neven’s point is that Rose and the GWPF might be communicating in the most opportunistic way. They really do seem to run with talking points. I don’t think you can disagree with this, or at the very least, that Rose’s main claim does not smell right.

This concession is not that harmful: at worse, it entails you explain why you cited them somewhat approvingly, which considering your recent “Tell that to the IPCC” it should not be difficult to do.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by curryja

0
0

Willard, what is OP?

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by willard (@nevaudit)

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by Dana Nuccitelli

0
0

“Now how is this refuted by the Met Office or Nuticelli?”

It seems as though you didn’t read my article at all. First it’s refuted by looking at the increase in global heat content, which as Roger Pielke Sr. will gladly tell you at every possible opportunity is a better measure of “global warming” than looking at the tiny fraction of energy that goes into warming the surface temperatures. I notice you have not even mentioned global heat content in your post even though it’s central to the article you’re attempting to respond to.

Second, the importance of the slowed surface warming trend is put in context by looking at the various short-term factors which have aligned in the cooling direction over the past decade, and the fact that climate models expect these types of ‘hiatus decades’ to occur. If an event is consistent with model simulations, and you’re arguing that the same event shows the models are flawed, then your argument has problems.

Third, my article points out that Rose’s argument is a cherrypick. A cherrypick may be factually accurate, but that doesn’t make it a valid argument. So your argument that Rose isn’t factually wrong (which it is, since he specifies “global warming” and not “global surface temperature”) is a very weak defense.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by willard (@nevaudit)

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by Edim

0
0

Warmists loved the 1997/98 El Nino, now they hate it.


Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by tomf0p

0
0

In other words, if the warmists want to deprive the plateauists of their start point, they must themselves forgo it as an end point?

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by Ammonite

0
0

To disabuse yourself of the notion that previous 35-year regression slopes are logical equivalents for the present try estimating the forcings involved at the time of their origin.

Seriously John, I am hoping for honest reflection here. I acknowledge many areas of uncertainty in my post. In particular “will the current underlying trend prove consistent?” Does this sound like I think linear regression can be extended indefinitely into the future? I repeat my original question: which will prove the better predictor in *ten* years: +0.00C or +0.16C?

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by andrew adams

0
0

There are two problems with this. Firstly the “super El Nino” was a temporary spike which had no impact on the long term trend. Secondly Tom’s point does not become invalid because of what someone else may have said in the past.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by andrew adams

0
0
<i>In other words, if the warmists want to deprive the plateauists of their start point, they must themselves forgo it as an end point?</i> Which is fine, because no warmist ever argues for a warming trend based on trends ending in 1998.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by Edim

0
0

I say 0.00 °C. Actually I expect at least -0.1 °C in the next 10 years.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by David Appell

0
0

Baloney. Intelligent people have always recognized that 15 yrs is too short of a period from which to draw any statistically significant conclusions — especially when autocorrelation is included. (Do the math.)

Comment on Coping with deep climate uncertainty by Wagathon

0
0
Beware sarcastic Warmists wearing their Togas of Hypocrisy like hairshirts. <em>What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.</em> ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by curryja

0
0

How is the substance of my Italian Flag post ‘running with talking points’? I have no idea what that even means. Which talking points? Look at the substance of my Italian Flag post.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

timg56,

You were talking about subjectivity, earlier, I believe.

But you’re right. As I already conceded, SkS sounds like an in crowd. If they ever wanted to look like an information portal, they should consider the possibility to cut comments and leave an emailing facility for more neutral contributions.

As a bonus, they would regain their lives:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nanny.htm

At least, theorically speaking.

Comment on ‘Pause’ : Waving the Italian Flag by curryja

0
0

Climate scientists should be talking about natural variability, instead of pretending it is just ‘noise’ on an overwhelming AGW signal. If they had been doing this all along, we would have a better understanding of how climate science works, and journalists such as David Rose would not need to write articles that are critical of the Met Office and the climate ‘establishment’. They now seem to be ‘discovering’ this issue, after it has been the main concern of skeptics for over a decade now. This whole situation is badly broken, and David Rose is hardly the person to blame here.

Read my c.v., and better yet my publications. I choose not to parrot the IPCC consensus, nor to to align myself explicitly with the skeptics ‘camp.’ Rather, I think for myself (about the science, the politics of science, and the science-policy interface), and I speak publicly about it.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

timg56,

Thank you. I believe that saying that Judy’s an e-salon or a ClimateBall battlefield where many in crowds meet for a free-for-all is a sober description of the site. That it acts as her business card sounds like a neutral interpretation too. Besides, even if your criterias were objective, you have to pick them among other ones on a subjective basis.

But I do admit that Judy’s is more amazingly entertaining than SkS.

Comment on ‘Pause’ discussion thread: Part II by Edim

0
0

“As The Escalator clearly illustrates, it’s easy to cherry pick convenient start and end points to obtain whatever short-term trend one desires, but the long-term global cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum is quite clear underneath the short-term noise.”

I fixed it.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images