Comments on: Like father, like son: Roger Pielke Sr. also doesn’t understand the science of global warming — or just chooses to willfully misrepresent it.

By: David

David — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:03:41 +0000

Can you take a minute to comment on Pielk, Jr et al’s article in Nature titled “Dangerous assumptions” (http://www.nature.com/ nature/ journal/ v452/ n7187/ full/ 452531a.html)?

Thanks,
D

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:34:26 +0000

It does.

By: Asteroid Miner

Asteroid Miner — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:12:13 +0000

“If a graduate student had tried this crap during a thesis defense, he would be denied his degree and thrown out of the Ph.D. program.”
He wouldn’t get into an undergraduate program in science or engineering. BUT, there are plenty of people who can’t read a graph and plenty of people who are only going to hear the comments on the radio while driving. The Big Lie technique works. The human brain has many foibles.

By: Dano

Dano — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:35:24 +0000

So AFAIK we’re pretty much stuck with “far less” rather than being able to say *how much* less …

But it is still an adequate indicator. What makes it problematic is for r/t monitoring for assessment of management strategies.

That is: it is good enough to tell us something bad is going on. It is not good enough as a dataset to use as a close monitor.

Best,

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:55:58 +0000

What matters is ice volume, and to a lesser extent, ice age. And what’s clear is that there is far less ice overall than there has been for eons.

It’s clear, but there’s no data available to quantify it. The US Navy data levered into the public arena by Gore is a partial dataset, and of course the fact that so much of the ice up there is now first-year ice makes clear the volumes much lower. But there’s nothing available to lead to a delta meters^3 loss figure that has any reasonable precision.

So AFAIK we’re pretty much stuck with “far less” rather than being able to say *how much* less …

By: Yuebing

Yuebing — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:08:36 +0000

It is so late in the day. We have come down to a few short years in which to deal with this.

W-M moves forward, and the EU is talking about a global binding target of 30% by 2020 out of Copenhagen.

http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/ climat/ pdf/ future_action/ citizen_summary_en.pdf

The efficiency gains brought by W-M will more than compensate for the expense of acheiving them. Every body wins.

Why is Pielke Sr. chumming around with the paranoids over at Watts’? Feeding the machine which seeks to defeat efforts to literally save the planet?

Rogers Pielke, go look at the trees.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2115

By: john

john — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:45:41 +0000

Good debunking –

One point: we need to stop talking about Acrtic sea ice in terms of aerial extent. What matters is ice volume, and to a lesser extent, ice age. And what’s clear is that there is far less ice overall than there has been for eons.

By: ken levenson

ken levenson — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:02:46 +0000

Florifulgurator,
on your first point – I think their analysis and much of the denier analysis can be boiled down to two words: bad faith. Acting in bad faith undermines everything.

regarding picture – i think it’s tied to one’s registration on wordpress.com

By: Florifulgurator

Florifulgurator — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:05:14 +0000

(Q: How can I put a picture next to my name?)

By: Florifulgurator

Florifulgurator — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:59:55 +0000

I used to ridicule even an educated layperson for misreading noisy time series. I thought it can’t be that difficult to see (look and comprehend) what the data says. Now PSr is outdoing the no-warmin-since-1998 wackoes?!? That would amount to either 1) total scientific illiteracy, or 2) audience-insulting fraudulency, or 3) insanity