Prev  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Comments 476 to 500 out of 906:

476. Dikran Marsupial at 22:52 PM on 14 October, 2011
     Jonathon I note that you have not addressed either of my comments. However, the consensus view is not that the plausible range is all positive values, if you want to see what the range of plausible values is then lets discuss it on the thread devoted to that issue i.e. How sensitive is our climate?. There you can find peer-reviewed research on the plausible ranges according to different methods. Your argument is essentially a straw man, I don't particularly see any point in arguing about it either, but if you change your mind, please take it to a more appropriate thread.
477. Bob Lacatena at 23:17 PM on 14 October, 2011
     475, Jonathan, Your entire rant is simply muddying the waters of what a definition of consensus might mean. As has already been explained and discussed, science doesn't really ever bother with defining and delineating a consensus. The consensus simply is. It is whatever most people in the field understand and agree with. There are always some who agree with X but disagree with Y, or vice versa. There's always a Z that's so basic and given that everyone but crackpots agree with it, and a W that's so far out of the mainstream that no one takes it seriously. The point is that there is no structure. Scientists don't get together once a year at the annual consensus convention and vote on which parts of science will or will not be considered accepted. Scientists get up in the morning. They go to work. They study, research, think and publish, and read each other's papers. Over time, like a hive mind, a social network of understanding evolves. What you are doing with the range of climate sensitivities is to muddle that, by taking the simple idea that every scientist has what he believes is a likely range of sensitivities, and instead conjuring a world where each scientist picks a specific number, and then claiming that because there are so many different numbers, there cannot be a consensus. This is all typical denier nonsense, intended to confuse people and sew doubt. The bulk of scientists know what the likely range of sensitivities is. A small group of fringe scientists expect sensitivities outside of that range. This does not mean that scientists are at all confused on the issue (which is what you ultimately are trying to imply with your own personal redefinition and portrayal of a consensus).
478. Jonathon at 00:33 AM on 15 October, 2011
     Sphaerica, You are a little late to the party, so I will bring you up to date. 1. The claim has been made here that since atmospheric CO2 leads to increasing temperature that there is a consensus on climate sensitivity, and it is positive. 2. The claim has also been made that the actual range which makes up the climate sensitivity is irrelevant, as long as we all agree on the endpoints of that range. 3. The final claim is that we all agree on that range. I disagree with all three claims. The first two claims are simply ridiculous, as they have no real meaning. It is not enough to know that X influences Y, but we need to know how much X influence Y, and if the influence of X on Y is unlimited, then do we really know anything about X and Y? The third claim is the only one with any real meaning. It is not sufficient for a small group to agree on a range if others do not, and calling Link, Spencer, Pagani, and Hansen "fringe scientists" does not add to your credibility. If you wish to add anything further, I suggest you tone down your attitude and try to become scientific in this discussion.
     Response:

     [DB] "If you wish to add anything further, I suggest you tone down your attitude and try to become scientific in this discussion."

     Good advice; please embody it yourself so others may emulate your positive example.

479. muoncounter at 01:58 AM on 15 October, 2011
     Jonathan#478: Once again, this is not the thread for detailed sensitivity discussion. By disagreeing with 'claim number one,' are you suggesting that sensitivity is either 0 or negative? If so, you would do well to refer to a sensitivity thread. But you have created new goalposts in the other two of your three claims: 'we all agree.' There is no such specific language in the definition of consensus as 'general agreement.' This is similar to the artifice used by the petition project, which contrived this language: there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere" Such language as 'convincing,' 'forseeable,' and 'catastrophic' are non-scientific. And 'we all agree' is higher than most legal burdens of proof.
480. Jonathon at 02:26 AM on 15 October, 2011
     Muon, See posts #475, #470, #456, and #454 for your answer. Remember, it was the other posts here at SKS who came up with claims, not myself. You would also be wise to learn that Webster defines consensus as "general agreement." If posters here are defining consensus as something else, then that would be reason for confusion.
481. muoncounter at 03:26 AM on 15 October, 2011
     Jonathan, 'General agreement' was exactly how I defined consensus. You have added 'we all agree,' which requires unanimous consent - a goalpost shift if ever there was one. I doubt you will ever find that.
482. Bob Lacatena at 05:08 AM on 15 October, 2011
     478, Jonathan, No, I'm not late to the party. I've read all of the comments. You missed my point. You are the one who is making propositions which others on this thread then try to recast into reasonable statements. You ignore their input and go on and on with your own peculiar interpretation of events as if you are speaking a different language, or rather speaking and not listening. I will repeat: You are personally redefining "consensus" in a way that lets you claim that there is none. The problem lies in your personal definition of consensus. There is a consensus that climate sensitivity is positive. The only people who try to imply otherwise are Lindzen and Spencer, but I don't think that even they would be caught dead actually coming out and saying such foolishness. There is a vague consensus around the likely range of climate sensitivity, based on the growing number of studies that all seem to fall in the 2˚C-4.5˚C range, centered somewhere around 3˚C. You can use the search button at the top of the page to find, read, and argue about such claims. But the point here is consensus. There is a growing consensus, resulting from a growing body of mutually confirming evidence using multiple sources and observations, which helps to bracket likely climate sensitivity. That you refuse to accept this consensus does not dissipate it one whit. That you choose to try to cast the term "consensus," the actual nature of such a consensus, or the body of knowledge behind said consensus into your own "we don't know, we can't know, we should wait" paradigm again does not dissipate the actual consensus one whit.
483. Jonathon at 05:26 AM on 15 October, 2011
     Muon, [snip] Is that your only issue here? That I used we all agree instead of general agreement?
     Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory deleted. Please can everyon involved in this discussion return to a more neutral tone. As there is "general agreement" amongst the climatolgists, but they dont all agree then the difference between definitions is substantive. Please, no more word games, no more discussion of climate sensitivity on this thread. Please get back on topic.
484. muoncounter at 07:25 AM on 15 October, 2011
     Jonathon#483: If you want to debate the existence or validity of 'consensus,' then it is critical to set a standard. Do you not see the difference between 'general agreement' and 'we all agree'? For example, there is probably 'general agreement' among regular readers here that the Oregon Petition is a waste of time. However, I would not say 'we all agree' about that.
485. Jonathon at 07:42 AM on 15 October, 2011
     Muon, Any confusion between 'we all agree', 'general agreement' and 'consensus' was unintentional.
486. Jdey123 at 08:35 AM on 18 December, 2011
     There was a concensus that the earth was flat for centuries. Science is about finding a model which not only fits retrospectively observed data but also accurately predicts the future. There is a concensus that the world is warming and that CO2 acts as a warming agent. That's it, there is no concensus on whether CO2 or another warming agent e.g. Methane is the primary warming agent. Nor does the IPCC have confidence in it's modelling, producing 5 potential scenarios in which the climate hardly warms at all, up to a potentially disastrous 4C increase.
     Response: [Rob P] - Indeed there was a consensus on Earth's flatness, but it wasn't a scientific consensus. The ancients Greeks realized the Earth was round two thousand years before Columbus sailed to the Americas, and Eratosthenes (a Greek mathematician) accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth around 200BC. "Nor does the IPCC have confidence in it's modelling" Citation? This isn't the wild, wild west of the intertubes where any old rubbish claim can be made. We expect you to support assertions with references to the relevant peer-reviewed literature, in other words - facts. Also, don't spam the threads. If you have a point to make, find the most appropriate and relevant thread to comment on by using the search function. Please read the comments policy. Failure to comply may result in your comment being deleted.
487. Jdey123 at 09:48 AM on 18 December, 2011
     I don't see any links in the majority of the posts on here. Are you claiming that there is only 1 model predicting climate change increase and this is agreed by all warmists? The fact is that a real scientist seeks the truth by creating a model that fits observed data and then checks it's accuracy against new data. There is no model that has managed to accurately predict climate change. All we have is a load of excuses that no model is accurate over a time period less than 30+ years. No explanation as to why a model should not be accurate over shorter timescales has been presented to the best of my knowledge.
488. Jdey123 at 09:54 AM on 18 December, 2011
     http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/slides/05.02.htm. The link.shows that the IPCC do not have a concensus on how much the earth will warm in future. The claim by warmists is that they can't be expected to accurately predict temperature change in the short term, but judging from the graph, over the long term their guesses just get wider.
     Response: [muon] You seem to have missed the moderator's response immediately above. There is a thread dedicated to climate modeling; use the Search function or view the 'Most Used Climate Myths' to find it. While you're at it, view the Comments Policy.
     Note, too, that unsubstantiated claims such as yours carry little validity and make you seem as if you are not very well versed in this science. Use of terms such as 'warmist' doesn't help make your case either.
489. Jdey123 at 10:09 AM on 18 December, 2011
     So I post a link which shows there's no concensus even amongst the warmists as to what the climate change model is, and muon claims that this is off topic. No scientist threatens to delete posts which don't fit with their view of the world, they seek to uncover the truth and present evidence that cannot be disputed. I don't know what the purpose of this site is but it certainly isn't interested in climate change science
     Response: [muon] We'll try again.
     Perhaps you could start by reading the original post, which deals with the idea of 'consensus' among scientists, not 'convergence' of climate models. Follow that by a thorough reading of the Comments Policy; if you cannot abide by that policy, your comments should indeed be deleted.
     The thread about modeling, if you care to have a look, is #6 on the 'Most Used Climate Myths.' Read and learn. Then start asking questions; you'll find most here are glad to engage in reasonable debate. However, if you are here to just throw around jargon, make unsupported claims and lecture about your views on 'uncovering the truth,' you're wasting everyone's time.
490. Bob Lacatena at 10:40 AM on 18 December, 2011
     489, Jdey123, You posted a link that, combined with your interpretation of it, demonstrates that you don't understand how modeling or science work. Climate science is of course inexact due to the large number of variables and the difficulty in measuring them. As a result, predictions must cover a broad range. This does not devalue the predictions or imply a lack of confidence or understanding. You don't complain when the weatherman tells you it will rain tomorrow, but does not accurately predict that the first raindrop will arrive at exactly 3:37 PM. Your observations and complaints in three posts add no value. They advance nothing. They pretty much make you sound like you're really grouchy, and climate science is telling you something you'd rather not hear. That, in and of itself, is nothing new. Lots of deniers do it day in and day out. Do you have anything substantive and meaningful to post, or to ask?
491. Eric (skeptic) at 10:59 AM on 18 December, 2011
     #489, Jdey123, the scenarios in your link in post 488 represent different emissions scenarios not lack of consensus over the climate change models. If anything, there is too much consensus in climate models IMHO. The guesses get wider over the long term because they properly reflect uncertainty in unpredictable natural variations that increase over time. Here's a good explanation of the additive uncertainty http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.06.html introduced by lots of factors that each have their own uncertainty. Having a model that produces a number or a small range in a 100 year climate forecast is impossible.
492. scaddenp at 20:03 PM on 18 December, 2011
     Jdey123 - I dont know whether your post will remain since you seem to be disregarding the comment policy which will not continue. This site is about providing what the science says in response to skeptical arguments. If you want to learn that then stay around. I'm short of time, but lets sort some basics. What model tells you what climate (30 averages of weather) do, given a particular emission scenario. They obviously cannot predict what humans will do - that is for politicians to decide. Its like firing a cannonball. If you choose this angle, then you get this trajectory. However, the force from the gunpowder is subject to uncertainty so the exact landing spot has uncertainty too. The uncertainty is qualified - and shown on the IPCC predictions. It seems to me that you believe that the modellers make claims that no published science in fact makes. You could learn what the models actually do and what they predict. Then you can discuss sensibly what models can and cannot do. Until you do that, your argement makes no sense. You are attacking a strawman - a common tactic. Please go to the "Models are unreliable" thread, and take from there after you have learnt a bit.
493. Jdey123 at 21:02 PM on 18 December, 2011
     scaddenp. No serious scientist deletes posts that disagree with their viewpoint. This magazine labels these as political or even more ridiculously that they're off topic and removes them. We know how much greenhouse gas has been produced by mankind, so assuming that the growth rate continues on trend, then you should be able to predict with a good degree of confidence what the global mean temperature will be in a relatively short time period, 5 years say. If you can't do this, and say that there are too many factors - mankind and nature - that prevent any level of confidence being attributed to your predictions, then your predictions are practically useless. There is still no concensus amongst warmists as to which greenhouse gas is the main culprit. Is it CO2 or methane? Both of which, of course, have both manmade and natural sources.
     Response:

     [DB] "If you can't do this"

     Straw man argument.  Even removing exogenous factors such as volcanic effects and oceanic cycles, a trend of much more than a decade is typically needed for the underlying warming signal inherent in multiple metrics used to monitor global warming due to the noisy nature of the data.

     "There is still no concensus amongst warmists as to which greenhouse gas is the main culprit."

     100% incorrect.  You will need to actually educate yourself more on this topic to understand just how wrong this statement is.  This is the equivalent of saying that 2+2=a porcupine.

     Trolling comments struck out.  Future comments of this nature will be simply deleted.  FYI.

     [not DB] Use the Search box to look for "methane" without the quote marks. Then search for "Scientists can't even predict weather."

494. Jdey123 at 21:07 PM on 18 December, 2011
     Science is about trying to establish truth by coming up with theories and then demonstrating that new data meets the prediction that the theory made. Creating a site where only warmists are allowed to attack arguments that critics of the science (labelled as denialists) have pointed out is not science. 5 years, ago, warmists had even more alarmist scenarios that they claimed would happen to earth. The more alarmist of these have now been dropped leaving just those scenarios which could be credible left. So far, none of these scenarios have been proved, and if you're a scientist then that's what you should concentrate on rather than spouting propaganda.
     Response:

     [DB] "Science is about trying to establish truth by coming up with theories and then demonstrating that new data meets the prediction that the theory made."

     Imprecise; science is about developing an explanation (a hypothesis) that best explains what we can see and measure.  Tests are then devised to either support or disprove the hypothesis.  Those hypothesis that withstand the test of time and much research are then called "theory".  One such is the theory of gravity.  Another is the theory anthropogenic global warming.  This link may help.

     "Creating a site where only warmists are allowed to attack arguments that critics of the science (labelled as denialists) have pointed out is not science."

     Two misconceptions here.  This site was created to debunk the logical fallacies of those who pretend to try to poke holes in the research by ignoring the evidence which contradicts their position.  The second misconception is that the term denialist refers to those who ignore evidence contrary to their position, no matter how damning.  If you prefer, substitute the term fake-skeptic on those occasions you encounter the term "denialist" on this website.  They are interchangeable.

     The remainder of your comment, unfortunately, devolves into ideology and misunderstandings of what science is, and isn't.  Please read the Comments Policy.

     [not DB] Use the Search box to search for "models are unreliable" without the quote marks.

495. Jdey123 at 21:28 PM on 18 December, 2011
     For the record, I don't have a political agenda. I would agree that it makes sense that mankind reduces pollution, not only just in case it'll lead to climate change but because if you live in a country that produces high levels of pollution, the immediate environment is terrible. I have never encountered such a debate as what we have on climate change that is so emotionally charged, however. This website is setup to try to debunk arguments put forward by all and sundry who've spotted holes in the warmist arguments, and there are lots of them. It will naturally attract people who agree and disagree with you. (-Snip-) I don't believe that warmists are a collective group, they represent a range of views of which the only concensus is that they believe that the earth will get warmer due to mankind. There is no concensus on how much warmer, which manmade pollutants are the primary cause of global warming etc.
     Response:

     [DB] "and there are lots of them."

     Unsupported assertions.  Be specific, put your objections on the appropriate threads (use the Search function; 4,700+ threads exist here).

     Your use of the terms "warmists" betrays ideology. Please study the Comments Policy & constructe future comments for better adherence to it.  Future ideological and/or inflammatory comments will simply be deleted and your posting privileges may be curtailed.

     Your use of the term "concensus" shows a lack of understanding of the scientific use of the term.

     Inflammatory snipped.

496. Eric (skeptic) at 23:13 PM on 18 December, 2011
     #493 (or 492 if 492 gets deleted), Jdey123, keep in mind the lower scenarios in the chart in your link are ones that start with the assumption that CO2 output will be greatly curtailed. The scenario with the lowest projected warming, B1, is labeled "global environmental sustainability" which is not currently happening. For each of those scenarios (A1, A2, B1, B2) there is a low to high range of temperature in the year 2100. My understanding is that the low end of the range represents the warming from CO2 and fast feedback which is basically increased vapor due to the CO2-caused temperature increase, but no other feedbacks. The high end of the range includes some "slow" feedbacks like permafrost melting and releasing CO2 and methane. Since that is already happening those are not necessarily slow anymore but there is considerable uncertainty about the future amounts. The darker line inside that range is the current best estimate. The amounts and types of uncertainty around that best estimate are difficult to depict in such a simple chart, and it is worth reading some of the details in the text. For your comments about this website, there are actually quite a few threads that address some of your bones of contention. For example making predictions for 5 years involves climate but also weather and is addressed here Even the difference between skepticism and denial was discussed here. I suggest you read the comments below the opening piece because you will probably find that all or most of your arguments have been offered and responded to there. If you disagree with the response then maybe you should add to that thread.
497. Jdey123 at 05:59 AM on 19 December, 2011
     Eric, when you produce a model that can predict the future global mean temperature, then it becomes science. In the mean time, it's theory. Weather forecasters are at least correct most of the time for a 1 day forecast. They may not be 100% correct, but they're correct often enough that most people have confidence in 1 day forecasts. Most people also have little confidence in forecasts greater than a few days. At 1 point, forecasters rather ambitiously used to issue seasonal forecasts but were wrong so often, they lost complete credibility. With climate change, we're told that the model can't be accurate either in the short or long term due to too many complicating factors. (-inflammatory snipped-). It will no doubt take a supercomputer bigger than what we have today and years of research, but humanity will eventually be able to crack this. As I've mentioned in my last post, I'm fine with the demand that mankind reducing pollution but I'm not ok with calling a theory, scientific fact. What exactly is my supposed political agenda here?
     Response:

     [DB] Please refrain from introducing politics into the discussion.  This is not a thread devoted to politics & climate science (others do exist that cover that).

     Also, your discussion of models is off-topic on this thread.  Please use the Models are unreliable thread for that.  Thanks!

498. Jdey123 at 06:02 AM on 19 December, 2011
     (-Snip-)
     Response:

     [DB] Moderation complaints snipped.

     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.

499. scaddenp at 06:53 AM on 19 December, 2011
     Jdey123 - I think you find that this site is happy to argue about different viewpoints - provided the person does so in the correct place, in keeping with the comment policy. Everyone except John is a guest here. it is far more constructive to arguments about models on a models thread. Also, arguments about science need to proceed from discussion of data and publications, not misinformed opinion. So, in keeping with topic of this thread, perhaps you could tell us on basis you make this statement? "There is still no concensus amongst warmists as to which greenhouse gas is the main culprit.". As far as I know, this is flat out wrong. Show me otherwise.
500. Jdey123 at 07:00 AM on 19 December, 2011
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27611/?tool=pmcentrez "A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties." Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario James Hansen,*† Makiko Sato,*‡ Reto Ruedy,* Andrew Lacis,* and Valdar Oinas*§ June 16, 2000

Prev  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.