.
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times. Show all posts

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Bret Stephens lowers the bar for intellectual honesty and more @NYTimes

Sou | 2:13 PM Go to the first of 45 comments. Add a comment
Many climate scientists have been quite horrified that the New York Times boasted how it had hired Bret Stephens. They pointed out he is a climate science denier, though he's probably more correctly labeled (if you like labels) a climate change disinformer of the usual ideological kind. (Irrational commitment to an ideology can do strange things to the brain. It can kill logic for one thing.)

I thought, okay, let's see what he writes and, hopefully, the NYT will have arranged for Bret to stick to subjects he knows something about and not let him spout his climate science denial.

That didn't happen.

In his very first NYT article you'd not have guessed that Bret Stephens had ever been awarded a Pulitzer. You'd not have known that he was a journalist at all, let alone one with any sort of reputation. You'd have thought he was a hack paid to spread disinformation by one of those flaky denier groups so prevalent in the USA, someone from fake insinuation and straw man land.

Friday, February 3, 2017

Eric Worrall is deeply offended by the New York Times *and* wants to trash the world

Sou | 11:42 AM Go to the first of 9 comments. Add a comment
Climate disinformer Eric Worrall took a short quiz at the New York Times (on WUWT archived here). The quiz was a few simple questions about what decisions Donald Trump should take in regard to oil, gas and protecting the planet Earth and the people who live on it.

Eric chose to tell Donald Trump to trash the planet, and then pretended to be deeply offended when he was told by the New York Times in response to his choices:
You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).

What does he expect? That anyone but his fellow planet wreckers would thank him for more floods, more drought, more heat waves, poorer crops, more wildfires, more skin cancer and faster global warming?

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Eric Worrall wants the New York Times to "balance" facts with conspiracy theories

Sou | 5:22 PM Go to the first of 16 comments. Add a comment
I've said before how difficult life is these days for climate science deniers and disinformers. They can't seem to win a trick with the weather against them and the science not supporting them. They don't like being ignored.

Eric Worrall is complaining today about a New York Times call for a climate change editor (archived here). Eric wants the job spec to include giving weight to pseudo-science and conspiracy theories, instead of focusing on the realities of climate change.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Unstoppable meltdown in Antarctica - and at WUWT, with a doozy of chart

Sou | 11:01 PM Go to the first of 42 comments. Add a comment

Anthony has taken another trip to Antarctica. This time he is complaining about an article in the Guardian, written by Suzanne Goldenberg. What Anthony seems to be complaining about is that the time scale of the projected total collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheets isn't in the headline, which reads:
Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn
So there is an indication of time - it's already started. Anthony's upset though. He reckons his deniers will only read the headline and get too scared to read any further. He's really scared that deniers won't read as far as the fourth sentence in the article, which is about the resulting four metre rise in sea level:
But the researchers said that even though such a rise could not be stopped, it is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away.

Abused by buried facts


Anthony thinks that if you have to read beyond 75 words of an 880 word article, then the next few words can be regarded as "buried".  He wrote:
Truly an abuse of the headline. Buried below the headline in the article, there is agreement with Revkin:

Anthony was referring to a five-year old article in DotEarth, which was about two papers published in Nature early in 2009. At the time (March 2009), Andy wrote about a paper in Nature, which modeled the West Antarctic ice sheets and reported that:
In this simulation, the ice sheet does collapse when waters beneath fringing ice shelves warm 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit or so, but the process at its fastest takes thousands of years. Over all, the pace of sea-level rise from the resulting ice loss doesn't go beyond about 1.5 feet per century.

Obviously as far as Anthony Watts is concerned, some models are good!


Collapses to the West and the East


What Suzanne Goldenberg was writing about in the Guardian today was a new paper by Eric Rignot and colleagues. This is the same Eric Rignot that Andy Revkin quoted five years ago (in Anthony's preferred 2009 article) writing:
Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory cautioned that the new findings were based on a single, fairly simple simulation and said that while the results matched well with the seabed evidence, they lacked the precision needed to know what will happen over short periods.
"This new study illustrates once more that the collapse of West Antarctica and parts of East Antarctica is not a myth." he said. "It happened many times before when the Earth was as warm as it is about to be. In terms of time scales, I do not think the results of this study are relevant to what will be happening in the next 100 years and beyond. The problem is far more complex. But this is a step forward."

Western Antarctica has already started to collapse, but it will take time


The long and short of it is that in denier land, it's an "abuse" to have a factual headline about new research findings:
Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn

That Guardian headline was mild compared to the NASA headline about the paper, which was:
West Antarctic glacier loss appears unstoppable

Anthony, for a change, not only included the title of the paper, which is:
Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica from 1992 to 2011.
...he even copied and pasted the abstract. Though he didn't go as far as providing a link to it. (My paras & bold italics)
We measure the grounding line retreat of glaciers draining the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica using Earth Remote Sensing (ERS-1/2) satellite radar interferometry from 1992 to 2011.
Pine Island Glacier retreated 31 km at its center, with most retreat in 2005–2009 when the glacier un-grounded from its ice plain.
Thwaites Glacier retreated 14 km along its fast-flow core and 1 to 9 km along the sides.
Haynes Glacier retreated 10 km along its flanks.
Smith/Kohler glaciers retreated the most, 35 km along its ice plain, and its ice shelf pinning points are vanishing.
These rapid retreats proceed along regions of retrograde bed elevation mapped at a high spatial resolution using a mass conservation technique (MC) that removes residual ambiguities from prior mappings. Upstream of the 2011 grounding line positions, we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down the entire basin.

Below is a map showing a couple of these glaciers. (Click to enlarge it.)

Source: Rignot13, Science


Anthony Watts doesn't usually go beyond newspapers and press releases. Scientific papers are a bit too deep for deniers. Anyway, he was comforted by Andy Revkin's 2009 headline, made especially for the scaredy cats like Anthony Watts and other science deniers:
Study: West Antarctic Melt a Slow Affair
Andy's latest headline on the subject was similarly aimed at calming the scaredy cats:
Consider Clashing Scientific and Societal Meanings of Collapse When Reading Antarctic Ice News

He's right of course. But deniers go way too far in the other direction.  They don't realise that only a couple of centuries from now, there could be a massive collapse causing a big rise in sea level. It might be later (I guess it might be sooner, too.)




Rabbet Run has the scary science


Eli Rabett has written about the study and what it means. It means that sometime in the next few centuries - maybe as soon as 200 years ahead (that is, it could be the children of your children's children who have to cope), the ice in West Antarctica could, over a matter of decades, cause a sudden large rise in sea level. Not something you would wish on your children or theirs.


Where are all the fake sceptic fact-checkers?


I don't know where all the fake sceptic fact-checkers have gone. They are quick off the mark if they see a similar mistake here, but a worse mistake at WUWT eludes them.  See if you can spot it.  Anthony wrote the following and put up a chart:
And there’s not any significant warming over the entire continent, as it is nearly flat as well (from 70S to the pole):
Source: WUWT
I think annual averages allow you to see the trend a bit better than monthly charts.

Data source: RSS

Did you see the main problem? Of course you got it. Anthony plotted a chart of the lower troposphere from the outer edge of Antarctica upwards to the equator. Antarctica is more like 70 south to 90 south. RSS doesn't show lower troposphere temperatures below 70S.




What happens near the surface is much more important


The other thing of course is that it's the temperature of the ocean that plays a very big role in melting the ice in West Antarctica. Probably much more so than the temperature of the lower troposphere.  There have been other papers about that. A reduction in snow cover can also speed up melting rather a lot.


From the WUWT comments


John Boles is optimistic and thinks the collapse will happen later rather than sooner, and says:
May 12, 2014 at 2:41 pm
It might be worse than we thought, well maybe in the distant future, our models suggest that it could happen perhaps in 1000 years.

Justthinkin doesn't do any thinking at all (or reading) and says:
May 12, 2014 at 2:49 pm
So what’s the problem? She writes a piece full of BS,gets paid,and doesn’t give a hoot about what others say. Until you take away her paycheck,same old,same old. And scientific or un-scientific facts will not stop that. And just what the heck is “several centuries” or a thousand years? To me,several could be 20,000years from now.

Martin C is relieved that the seas may not rise quite four metres until after he's six feet under and says:
May 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm
I think it’s great to see these extremely ‘alarmist’ headlines, followed by a bit less alarmist in the text. People will continue to see the ‘alarmism’ for what it is. And likely continued to get turned off by it. Especially when the same ‘journalists’ keep printing this crap. 

pablo an ex pat has been misled by Anthony, who recently made a big fool of himself, and doesn't realise how big Antarctica is (it's about twice the size of Australia ie around twice as big as contiguous USA), or that there are lots of mountains separating east and west, and says:
May 12, 2014 at 2:53 pm
So in two alarmist stories reported during the space of on one day on WUWT the Antarctic is getting colder and warmer all at the same time. It’s both gaining ice and it’s losing ice. And both these occurrences are issues that needs us to do something right now. What exactly ?

Ed P is not good at assessing relative risk but he values money, and says:
May 12, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Yellowstone could explode or meteors might wipe out most of humanity before the sea rises that much. All that is certain is that governments will steal your savings long before you need a boat. 

Jeff in Calgary doesn't have a clue what the new paper is about and yes, he's missing something:
May 12, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Isn’t this about a floating ice sheet? How is a floating ice sheet melting going to raise sea levels? Am I missing something? 

sadbutmadlad is sad and deluded and doesn't realise that climate is changing in the here and now, and says:
May 12, 2014 at 9:53 pm
The narrative works. Lie first, lie big. Just watching a BBC Breakfast item on the newspapers at 5:50am and they talked about not being able to do anything about global warming as its already here. No mention of the 1000 years, everything was couched in terms of immediacy. Even journalists don’t read the small print and are fooled by the article. Ultimate scaremongering

In all the 97 comments over 13 hours I didn't see one that picked up on Anthony's gaffe with his RSS temperature chart. There may have been one or two that discussed the science. The rest were pure unadulterated wails of denial.


E. Rignot, J. Mouginot, M. Morlighem, H. Seroussi, B. Scheuchl. "Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica from 1992 to 2011".. Geophysical Research Letters, 2014; DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060140

Rignot, E., S. Jacobs, J. Mouginot, and B. Scheuchl. "Ice-shelf melting around Antarctica." Science 341, no. 6143 (2013): 266-270. DOI: 10.1126/science.1235798

Peter Kuipers Munneke, Stefan R.m. Ligtenberg, Michiel R. Van Den Broeke, David G. Vaughan. "Firn air depletion as a precursor of Antarctic ice-shelf collapse". Journal of Glaciology, 2014; 60 (220): 205 DOI: 10.3189/2014JoG13J183

Huybrechts, Philippe. "Global change: West-side story of Antarctic ice." Nature 458, no. 7236 (2009): 295-296. doi:10.1038/458295a

Naish, Timothy, R. Powell, Richard Levy, G. Wilson, R. Scherer, Franco Talarico, L. Krissek et al. "Obliquity-paced Pliocene West Antarctic ice sheet oscillations." Nature 458, no. 7236 (2009): 322-328. doi:10.1038/nature07867

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The Heat is On in New York City

Sou | 5:17 AM Go to the first of 3 comments. Add a comment


Update: Click to jump down to some of the comments from the freaks freaking out.


But Anthony Watts sez "scientists don't know nuffin'"


There is yet another "scientists don't know nuffin'" article from Anthony Watts on WUWT. (See the fallacy of personal incredulity.)

He quotes New York's Daily News:
CLIMATE CHANGE is real — and it could turn the city into a flood-prone danger zone with summers as sweltering as the deep South’s in the not-too-distant future, according to an expert panel of scientists.
The panel, which Mayor Bloomberg tasked with studying weather patterns in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, predicts the greatest threats to Gotham will be catastrophic heat waves and frequent bouts of heavy rains for days on end.
The bad weather patterns should kick in as early as 2020, according to the findings released on Monday.
In that year, the city will see an average temperature of 57 degrees — up from the current 54 — and 10% more rainfall. 
Read more

Anthony's headline reads: Bloomberg’s Climate Fantasy and he writes:
The data doesn’t support him. The temperature rise seems to have slowed in the past few years...
"Doesn't support him?".  From what I can see, the scientific panel is co-chaired by Cynthia Rosenzweig and my guess is she's a woman.  (Anthony regards women as "emotionally based lifeforms".)

Anyway, Anthony's decided the temperature rise "seems to have slowed" therefore the scientists are wrong about 2020 average temperatures being 57° Fahrenheit.  But then, as if in contradiction of himself, he puts up a chart of Central Park data that shows that last year, the annual temperatures topped the 57° F predicted in the article, with a record value of 57.3° Fahrenheit.  Since 1990 there have been four years where the average topped 57° Fahrenheit and eight years where it was higher than 56° Fahrenheit, including the past three years.

Here is a gif animation of the Central Park temperature trends for summer, winter and the full year. (Click to enlarge.)

Source: NOAA
Anthony also puts up charts showing the seas are rising and says:
Will the Sea level go up a foot by 2020? Doubtful....Based on current NOAA data, it will take over 100 years to gain a foot of sea level rise.  And, it really is easy to get freaked out if you don’t pay attention to anything but hype
Anthony's main concern seems to be "freaking out".  More on that below.

Meanwhile, is there likely to be a one foot rise in sea level by 2020? Most probably not.  The Daily News appears to be in error on that one - by an inch or more and maybe a few years to later in the 2020s.  Here is what the New York Times says about the findings of the New York City Panel on Climate Change:
In 2009, it projected that sea levels would rise by two to five inches by the 2020s. Now, the panel estimates that the sea levels will rise four to eight inches by that time, with a high-end figure of 11 inches. Between 1900 and 2013, sea levels in New York City rose about a foot, administration officials said.
“It will not take another 100 years to get another foot,” said Caswell F. Holloway IV, a deputy mayor.
Not long to wait.  The report itself should be out by the end of the month and it's less than seven years till 2020.  I wonder if Anthony Watts will still be in denial and personally incredulous about any and all science. I wonder what I'll be doing.


Who to believe?


Here is the pre-Sandy report from 2009.  If you want to compare the panel members' credentials with those of Anthony Watts, then the inside cover lists the names.  Current panel members may be different but even if so there is likely to be the same spread of expertise:
  • Cynthia Rosenzweig (co-chair) - NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies/Columbia University Earth Institute Center for Climate Systems Research (Columbia EI CCSR)
  • William Solecki (co-chair)- CUNY Institute for Sustainable Cities at Hunter College (CUNY CISC)
  • Reginald Blake - CUNY, New York City College of Technology
  • Malcolm Bowman- SUNY, Stony Brook
  • Andrew Castaldi - Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation
  • Craig Faris - Oliver Wyman
  • Vivien Gornitz - NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
  • Klaus Jacob - Columbia Earth Institute
  • Alice LeBlanc - American International Group (AIG)
  • Robin Leichenko - Rutgers University
  • Edna Sussman - SussmanADR, LCC
  • Gary Yohe - Wesleyan University
  • Rae Zimmerman - New York University
Then there is the Science Panel Team.


On Freaking Out


Anthony needs to calm his readers who really, really hate being "freaked out".  "Freaking out" is what causes the conservative brain to explode.  Do you really want exploding brains all over the place?  No?  Then  think what a public service people like Anthony Watts are providing.  By filling his readers' brains with disinformation he is probably preventing a fair number of brain explosions - though he may just  be shifting the occurrence from the 8% to the 92%.

Whether his readers will take any notice of this with regard to their investments is a good question.


Freak Quotes


Paul Burtwistle. says:
June 11, 2013 at 4:16 pm  I noticed that the Sydney Morning Herlad ran the Bloomberg story yesterday. Its amazing that they don’t publish skeptic articles that are basred on real scientific data and good scientific process yet print rubbish like this that has no base in reality.

MattN says:
June 11, 2013 at 2:39 pm  Love how they use a wonderfully sited thermometer above an asphalt parking lot to say “see what we have to look forward to?” I went through the last several years of official Central Park temperature records for June-August and can’t find anything close to 108F.
Here you go, Matt.  It's not Central Park, but it's close enough.

Jimbo indulges in conspiracy ideation of the nefarious intent type and says:
June 11, 2013 at 2:39 pm  Does Mike Bloomberg have a stake in alternative energy companies? Does his business?

chris y is probably spot on when he says this, but not in the way I think he means:
June 11, 2013 at 12:55 pm  ...Every passing year will only make these predictions worse than we think today.
I suspect RHS doesn't understand Mother Nature's response to extra CO2 when he writes:
June 11, 2013 at 11:58 am  Bloomberg vs. Mother Nature. My money’s on Mother Nature.

cotwome is a bit weird when he says this.  I guess he's never heard of Google:
June 11, 2013 at 11:18 am  Are we going to find out any names of the ‘expert panel of scientists’? Are we going to get any information on how they came to all the conclusions they came too? Its amazing all the people at the nydailynews.com and twitter that believe all this; with no names, no data, no debate, no way to judge for themselves, they just believe it!
What happened to ‘think for yourself question authority’?

And that's less than 10% of of the freak-outs.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Dr James E Hansen: A Whopper of a Man - moving from great to greater

Sou | 2:31 PM Feel free to comment!
I've read a few articles about James Hansen since he announced his resignation from NASA. The ones that have had the most impact have been those touching on the personal.

Eli Rabett has written an article, saying quietly: Eli Appreciates Hansen.

A man of worth, who is shifting societies towards a clean future

Eli's post is well worth a read.  It includes a brief bio plus a couple of lovely anecdotes that help put the blogosphere  and we piddly bloggers in perspective.  (The blogosphere does not shape the world, it's people like James Hansen who shift societies.)

A man of science and courage

350.org has posted a photo tribute to Dr Hansen:


A climate maverick and best-known public figure in climate research

Justin Gillis has written a nuanced article in the New York Times.  He describes how Dr Hansen emerged into the public spotlight when "on a blistering June day in 1988 he was called before a Congressional committee and testified that human-induced global warming had begun."

The Gillis article also gives a thumbnail sketch of Hansen's life and career.

More about James E Hansen

For a biography, I suppose Wikipedia is a general source, but to appreciate the essence of the man, I think Eli's post and Justin Gillis' article are better.

For some of Hansen's writings, go to his personal website at Columbia University.  There is a heap of material to read there.  And if you haven't already done so, get a copy of his most well-known book:


from Amazon or Google or other source.


Thank you Dr Hansen

Thank you, Dr Hansen for your courage, science and ongoing efforts to help all of us shift to a cleaner world and give hope for a bright future to generations not yet born.