Posts Tagged ‘climate change’

Climalteranti: Le variazioni climatiche durante l’ultimo milione di anni: mandanti, killer e alibi (seconda parte)

May 16, 2009

Grazie per il riferimento a Fig.2. Siamo sicuri che ritragga proprio “il passaggio di Nord Ovest libero dai ghiacci nell’agosto del 2007″?

Sul web ho trovato la foto ingrandita riguardo l’orso
http://ct5.pbase.com/t6/06/642906/4/69731346.rS3YVgSv.jpg

La pagina completa parla di “Artico e Passaggio a Nord Ovest”
http://www.pbase.com/spencer1959/arctic__northwest_passage&page=2

Ecco una foto del Passaggio, come da didascalia
http://www.pbase.com/spencer1959/image/69819192

Comunque dubito che il signor Wynn sarebbe contento dell’uso delle sue foto senza attribuzione, specie di quelle usate per la copertina di un libro che costa 77 dollaroni e dove il copyright e’ bello in grande a pagina 1

Su quella copertina c’e’ poi anche un titolo accanto all’orso…per favore non ditemi che avete “ritoccato” la fotografia

ps a quanto pare il viaggio di Wynn nell’Artico e’ del luglio 2006. Ecco la sua foto in un articolo del gennaio 2007
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/175673

BBC: Coughing up to curb climate change

November 25, 2008

To those claiming that benefits may as well outweigh costs, as per the original DEFRA estimates: can you please remind me of any initiative by any UK Government that has turned out to be cheaper than expected, and providing more benefits than originally claimed?

And the “£10,000 in 42 years” argument is disingenuous. Of course, we will have to pay the £10,000 asap. And of course, we will see any benefit only at the very end of the period.

After all, they will want to get as much as possible now (as long as they can), and then spend 42 years to devise ways to fudge with the results and proclaim victory

Real Climate: Simple Question, Simple Answer… Not

September 9, 2008

I see that my point (#10) is more or less repeated by other commentators (eg #53 and #58).

Gavin: you reply to #53: “Why should anyone continue to discuss with you?”

If you really want to communicate, then you better find a way of communicating. If on the other hand you don’t want to communicate, there is little point in replying to comments, really.

In fact you remind me of those English-speaking tourists arriving back home in frustration, convinced that the locals they visited are brainless idiots, after having shouted, yelled, huffed and puffed to make themselves understood…by people that simply do not speak English.

If you or Mr Weart want to speak to engineers, or anybody else, then you both better speak in a way that engineers can understand. And if they don’t appear to have understood, you cannot simply jump to saying “why are you people so slow to understand?”…the only sensible option is to see where the miscommunication is (yes, it can be with you too), and to work to fix that.

I have provided a few suggestions already.

People do have various degrees of skepticism in the nature and dangers of anthropogenic global warming. How difficult is it to recognize that? If you instead poo-poo their thoughts whenever expressed, you will win nobody’s mind. Fine by me, but then what’s a blog for?

RealClimate: Butterflies, tornadoes and climate modelling

May 2, 2008

Maurizio Morabito Says:
1 May 2008 at 7:11 PM

There is a simple way to settle the falsifiability issue. Could anybody at RC please post a blog clearly stating what would falsify the climate models? Say (just as a way of example) “if temperatures will be cooler than today’s in 2020″ or “if there is a sustained negative trend over the course of 25 years”. Those statements are simplistic: I am sure you can come up with something more sophisticated.

Alternatively, if such a clear-cut answer has already been the topic of one of your blogs, could you please provide the link. thanks in advance.

=======

7 May 2008 at 7:03 PM

Re #107

I am preparing a relatively long commentary on what I am learning from this blog and its comments. For now let me clarify that I do not think that current climate models are based on incorrect physics.

The black-body radiation equivalence still holds though, as what looked like a relatively minor nuisance (“noise”?) to your average XIX century physicist, was the basis for a whole new understanding of the whole science of physics.

Think of genetics: yesterday’s “junk DNA” is (in part) today’s “gene switches”. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

As for the comments policy, in the past I have seen some thoughts of mine not published, for whatever reason. I am pleasantly surprised that nothing of the sort is happening this time around, and hopefully the situation won’t change.

The Reference Frame: RSS MSU corrections & record cold temperatures

February 6, 2008

It may or may not be of interest, but Western Europe has experienced quite a mild winter so far, and in the satellite pictures looks like a lonely spot of green surrounded by snow white all over the Northern Hemisphere…

Letter to the BBC: Climate news bias (China vs Argentina)

January 31, 2008

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007
From: Maurizio Morabito
Subject: Climate news bias (China vs Argentina)
To: Jonathan Amos, Richard Black

Dear Jonathan, dear Richard

Are some weathers more equal than others?

Why is it that if (A) it’s exceptionally warm in China, the news page on the BBC web site is graced by links to (anthropogenic) “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” but if (B) it’s exceptionally cold in Argentina, there is no recommendation at all to read further about climate change?

If you/the BBC believe that extreme weather events can be traced back to anthropogenic climate change (check the articles about the UK’s heat wave last April), then the same links should appear next to B just as next to A.

Otherwise, it will look like you’re suggesting that weather news are globally relevant only when they are about increased warmth.

That would be an unwelcome, blatant reporting bias.

In the meanwhile, pity those Southern Americans surely undergoing a bad case of “warming envy” at the moment.

William M. Briggs, Statistician: Is climatology a pseudoscience?

January 30, 2008
  • 26. Maurizio Morabito  |  January 30th, 2008 at 3:35 am

    I wonder if Park’s warning signs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 apply to several “anti-AGWers” aka “skeptics”?

    1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media
    2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work
    4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal
    5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries
    6. The discoverer has worked in isolation

Watts Up With That: The Climate Change and Wine Conference

January 25, 2008

Please don’t tell them that ingested ethanol (=wine) ends up as water and CO2, otherwise somebody will outlaw alcoholic beverages altogether…

Climate Resistance: Physician, Heal Thyself

January 18, 2008

maurizio morabito said…The AR4-WG2 report is interesting on several other fronts as well. It is the one place where (in its chapter 1) there is an analysis of hard data about the present-day world, instead of predictions about the future or discussions about models. I hope you will find the time to read it in detail, and comment it here.

For now I point out to an evident bias in what is reported: “Global Warming May Be Just European”

18 January 2008 19:21

Accuweather Global Warming: Initial Poll Results

January 17, 2008
Skepticism is the only answer. Everything else is by definition unwarranted.

And by the way…when something becomes self-evident, it’s not science any longer 😎

Climate Skeptic: Response to Greg Craven’s “How the World Ends” Video

January 17, 2008

I have watched Craven’s “Most Terrifying Video” and found it rather…anti-climactic 8-)He’s basically saying is that we should refer to scientific authorities. Yuck…is THAT it?

“Undeniable”???

Something I haven’t seen yet is an understanding that risk management cannot be seriously done if one of the “four boxes” is so heavily catastrophist, whilst the consequences of action are disregarded as minimal and confined to economics alone.

Somebody please google about “Bufo marinus”…

The tragedy is that we’ve been this way before, many times, and scientist-advocates have already brought us disasters around their pet ideas. Eugenics, and the Bufo Marinus.

I say, I am catastrophist myself, and if the human race decides to waste all resources in fighting the AGW fake monster, it’s going to be “amen” and “r.i.p.” to all of us

Real Climate: Con Allègre, ma non troppo

January 15, 2008
  1. (40) Maurizio Morabito Says:
    16 October 2006 at 12:20 PM The Climate-Change-Is-Very-Bad community has huge communication issues wrt the general public and it is telling that the main gist of Allegre’s article is completely lost to the RealClimate commentator

    Allegre, as others have said, is a politician, so his words must be “decoded” thinking of a politician’s language, not a scientist’s

    It then becomes a matter of practical action in the real world. And in the real world, Allegre can see “the ecology of the powerless protester” (”l’ecologie de l’impuissance protestataire”) having become a good business, whilst _nothing_ serious gets done (even Al Gore thinks nothing of perpetually jetting around the world)

    My personal view on the upcoming (or not) catastrophe of global warming are somewhere in the archives of RealClimate. But those are beside the point

    The question to ask is what if anything is preventing the entire world from acting even remotely in step with what is written day in, day out on RealClimate and other similar fora, newspaper articles and now even documentary movies

    Allegre thinks the issue is that disasters are not predicted to happen before another half a century. An interesting point indeed

    [Response: Why do potentially sensible comments on appropriate policy responses need to come packaged with demonstrably erroneous science then? There are plenty of serious commentators discussing these issues, and it can be done without distorting the science. -gavin]

  2. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    16 October 2006 at 5:47 PM Re: 40

    “Why do potentially sensible comments on appropriate policy responses need to come packaged with demonstrably erroneous science then?”

    Perhaps because the scientific details are not relevant to Allegre’s argument? All he needs is “the doubt”. If he had cared about the sources he would not have mixed up Nature and Science

    For an example of science-less policy, think of the “War on Drugs”

  3. Alastair McDonald Says:
    17 October 2006 at 2:31 AM Maurizio, are you saying that “a barrage of stories on disappearing species, uncontrollable pests, rising seas, floods, droughts, heat waves, fires, violent storms, scarce food/jobs/resources, and forecasts of millions of human deaths” are “demonstratably erroneous science”?
  4. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    17 October 2006 at 5:10 AM Re: 41

    Alastair

    No I am not. “Demonstrably erroneous science” was a comment by Gavin on Allegre’s words

    Besides, the fact that there is a barrage of stories of impending doom is just that: a fact

    To be 100% clear: I am not hell-bent in demonstrating that contemporary climate science is a load of rubbish (it isn’t). I am simply and fundamentally “allergic” to hysteria and prophecies of doom

    If I could show that all as based on “demonstrably erroneous science” I guess we would not be here talking about it 8-)

  5. Alastair McDonald Says:
    17 October 2006 at 7:13 PM Maurizio,

    So you agree with me -) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/how-not-to-attribute-climate-change/#comment-20023 that one of those [old prejudices that we all retain], which is common to all people including myself, is that disaster is not just around the corner.

    Despite the “barrage of stories on disappearing species, uncontrollable pests, rising seas, floods, droughts, heat waves, fires, violent storms, scarce food/jobs/resources, and forecasts of millions of human deaths” you are convinced it is all “hysteria”.

    You think that we should not report the truth because it does not “serves any purpose apart from scaring people”?

  6. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    18 October 2006 at 2:38 AM RE: 44

    Alastair

    In truth our two points do not necessarily contradict one another. It can still be “truth” but reported as “hysteria”

    As for people not avoiding the wall until they get their nose flattened up against it, well, it would help if the likes of Al Gore were not out there disseminating contrails to tell us not to fly any longer…

    The medium is always part of the message, and for every Cassandra predicting it as it will be, there is a crying-wolf 8-)

  7. Alastair McDonald Says:
    18 October 2006 at 10:21 AM Re #46

    Well, perhaps I am a Cassandra. However, don’t forget that Cassandra was right but was cursed by the gods and so no-one believed her. (I know how that feels.) So Troy fell despite her warnings -( And don’t forget that in the story of The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf the villagers’ flocks were destroyed because the boy was having fun lying.

    Do you really think all these reports are lies, or when a respected diplomat such as Sir Crispin Tickell was Speaking Out on Climate Change to the AAAS, he was doing it for fun?

    The AAAS reported:
    “The business-as-usual way of dealing with the Earth’s system is not an option,” warned Sir Crispin Tickell, delivering the 2006 Robert C. Barnard Environmental Lecture to a full auditorium at AAAS in Washington, D.C. The director of the Policy Foresight Programme of the James Martin Institute at Oxford University first brought the problem of human-induced climate change to wide public attention nearly 30 years ago. Today, he states that global climate change poses a greater threat to society than terrorism and that vested interests in the United States are preventing a swift global response.

  8. Dan Says:
    18 October 2006 at 5:20 PM re: 46.
    “As for people not avoiding the wall until they get their nose flattened up against it, well, it would help if the likes of Al Gore were not out there disseminating contrails to tell us not to fly any longer…”

    Sounds like someone has taken in by right-wing political commentary against Gore speaking out about global warming. As Google or Yahoo! can show you, Gore’s effort to inform people about global warming is carbon neutral.

  9. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    18 October 2006 at 5:58 PM Re: 47

    Alastair: Hysteria is a way of communicating. It has nothing to do with truth or fakehood. One can be hysterical while saying the truth. In no way what I write should be read as affirming that any scientist in the Climate-Change-Will-Kill-Us camp is saying so “for fun”, or knowingly distorting the data

    They (you) see something and yell out your concerns. I see the same things but no reason (yet) to be concerned: and definitely no reason to cry wolf, even if as in the fairy tale the boy was “third time lucky” (in the sense that the third time, really there was a wolf)

    Re; 48

    Dan: Whatever Al Gore is doing to be carbon-neutral (and the amounts to offset do vary from website to website), it is not part of any article I have ever read about his movie

    Wonder if the great unwashed are supposed to be googling about the Man?

    ClimateCrisis clear states “Fly less”: the air-travel offset is supposed to be an alternative, if one really cannot fly less, not the main message. Has Mr Gore organized the launch of the movie in different countries so he would minimise the amount of miles, one wonders

    And most of all, why oh why could he not ram in the clear-and-present-danger of climate change by presenting the movie via internet conferencing?

    ————

    For other examples of “greenwash”, read UK commentator, environmentalist extraordinaire and Guardian editorialist George Monbiot, unless you believe he has been taken in by right-wing political commentary too (”Heat: how to stop the planet burning”: website: http://www.turnuptheheat.org/ )

  10. Dan Says:
    18 October 2006 at 8:19 PM re: 47.
    “…the great unwashed…”. That sort of ad hominem speaks volumes.

    Compare GHG emissions between planes and fossil-fuel fired power plants for context. Clearly, the attacks on Gore’s presentations are not scientifically motivated because the science speaks for itself through the scientific method and peer-reviewed studies in various journals. The attacks are politically motivated and often personal. They are subsequently fed to and regurgitated by those who look for things to throw out to laymen to obfuscate the scientific issues and belittle Gore.

  11. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    19 October 2006 at 3:02 AM Re: 50

    Dan

    Regarding regurgitations, please do read a comment before replying

    The “great unwashed” was about people like me

  12. Barton Paul Levenson Says:
    19 October 2006 at 8:06 AM Re #49 and “Dan: Whatever Al Gore is doing to be carbon-neutral (and the amounts to offset do vary from website to website), it is not part of any article I have ever read about his movie…Wonder if the great unwashed are supposed to be googling about the Man?…ClimateCrisis clear states “Fly less”: the air-travel offset is supposed to be an alternative, if one really cannot fly less, not the main message. Has Mr Gore organized the launch of the movie in different countries so he would minimise the amount of miles, one wonders…And most of all, why oh why could he not ram in the clear-and-present-danger of climate change by presenting the movie via internet conferencing?”

    I take it this poster would ignore a doctor’s advice to quit smoking if the doctor was a smoker himself. That’s a logical fallacy, buddy. Try talking about the issue instead of the people presenting the issue.

    -BPL

  13. Dan Says:
    19 October 2006 at 12:09 PM re: 51. “Wonder if the great unwashed are supposed to be googling about the Man?” and “The “great unwashed” was about people like me”.

    It certainly does not read that way.

  14. Maurizio Morabito Says:
    20 October 2006 at 6:09 PM RE: 52

    BPL: I didn’t say _we_ should not follow Gore’s advice because he’s more of a global warming “sinner” than most of us.

    I wrote that “it would help” if _he_ would follow his own advice

    I am sure “Gore pledges not to travel by air” would be headline news for days

    Re 53:

    Dan: Apologies for not having been clearer. You had suggested to google about Gore. My point was that most people reading all the commentaries about the movie should not “have to” google.

    Somehow the message about him being carbon neutral is not filtering through to the newspapers, the vast majority of whose articles I have read talk positively about Gore’s efforts

    And in any case the question remains: what’s so wrong with internet conferencing, nowadays? Especially in a circumstance where its usage would underly the message so effectively

Shepherd on Climate: Sea levels

January 14, 2008
Another issue to consider about changing sea levels is that the continent themselves are not static either…there are places where the land is rising faster than the sea, and so will experience _receding_ local sea levels. For other places it will be the opposite. For others still, it will be hard to discern any change at all. It would be interesting to figure out how much of the inhabited world falls into each of those categories.

Tierney Lab: Contarians vs. Bali

December 17, 2007

I wouldn’t experiment with geoengineering as yet.

There are too many examples of unwanted consequences with similar lines of thoughts in the past.

One of the worst cases concerns the Cane Toad, that is devastating Australia as we speak after being introduced in the misguided attempt at controlling some species of insect (that is actually doing just fine).

Geoengineering should be left as “extrema ratio”, the direst of circumstances, if there is nothing else left to do.

That is definitely not the case for “global warming”.

In fact, if anybody bothers to read the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Working Group 2 (AR4-WG2), it will be clear that 96% of reported changes are about Europe, 3% about North America and just 1% for the rest of the planet.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm

I give more details in a recent blog:
http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/global-warming-may-be-just-european/

But by all means, everybody should read the original themselves. That may help keep the discussion within the confines of the real world, instead of shouting accusations of “fascism” like Al Gore just did in Bali

IHT Letters: Unintended irony on the October 11 print edition

October 14, 2007

From: “Maurizio Morabito”
Subject: Unintended irony on the October 11 print edition of the IHT
To: “Letters IHT”

Dear Editors

May I point out some (unintended?) irony on the October 11 print edition of the IHT.

On the front page, Luminaries talk in Potsdam about global warming (“Nobel laureates feel validation on climate change“, by Mark Landler).

Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is reported as saying that “the latest findings…ought to settle the debate about whether humans are making the planet a dangerously warmer place.”

Meanwhile in the Healtgh&Science section of that very same edition, John Tierney reports on “How ‘fat is bad’ theory became a mistaken consensus“.

Remarkably, just a few years ago “92 percent of the world’s leading doctors” believed in what we now know was in fact “mistaken consensus“.

Why would the situation be any different about the currently fashionable, overwhelming agreement that anthropogenic climate change is effectively undergoing, is anybody’s guess.

Accuweather Global Warming Blog: CO2 not the Prime Suspect in Ending Last Ice Age

September 28, 2007

Note that Stott’s result appear to contradict the standard interpretation of ice-core data.

It is likely that in a few years it will be recognized that ice cores are almost impossibly hard to interpret for investigating past climates, as gases (and liquid water) keep mixing vertically throughout a glacier