Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 Next
Comments 52601 to 52650:
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:40 PM on 14 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
amhartley DB's language was slightly confusing. The rate over the last 1/2 century is around 133 Terawatt's or 2 Hiroshima Bombs per second. This is the 50 year average. As the graph from DK12 above shows,the first decade of this saw roughly zero net change so actually the rate is slightly higher. The total amount of heat is around 2.1*10^23 Joules or nearly 60,000,000 TeraWatt Hours. One point I make in that older post is that this much heat cannot have come from anywhere here on Earth. The largest source of heat here on Earth is Geothermal heat and this heat source is only around 1/4 of what is needed to be the source of this extra heat. This leaves only one possible source for the heat - something altering the Earth's energy balance with space. Since we know the Sun hasn't been getting warmer over the last 1/2 century so it isn't more heat getting in, that only leaves something that is prevent energy from getting back out. No prizes for guessing what that is. -
amhartley at 13:10 PM on 14 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Moderator @11: Terawatt is a rate, not an amount of energy. Do you mean terawatt-hours? -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:36 AM on 14 October 2012Most coral reefs are at risk unless climate change is drastically limited
Perhaps the loss of an important tourism resource like the Great Barrier Reef will have more impact on the Australian population than the melting of the far-away Arctic, where almost no-one wants to spend their holidays. When the reef is dead, will people be more inclined to look for a culprit? What a tragic way to run a civilisation. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:27 AM on 14 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
John Cook, thanks for posting this item. I am writing an essay on Peak Civilisation, including a chapter on climate change. I have now printed the PDF you linked and have it pinned to my workspace, alongside the printout of my mind map. Hopefully, it will help to keep me from detouring down dark labyrinths of denialistic mythology and keep me focussed on delivering the core message. -
Andy Skuce at 10:59 AM on 14 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
I should confess at the outset that I have an instinctive bias against the techniques described in the paper. It's not that I don't think that they can be effective, they clearly can be, not least because they are used by corporate PR departments, advertising agencies and political spin-doctors, and none of these groups would apply them if they didn't work. The problem is that I react negatively when I detect such methods directed at me, and my instinctive worldview is that I would prefer to have my information delivered to me straight, neutrally framed and unspun, and that I should, in turn, do the same when communicating to others. (Perhaps the authors of the paper should have taken more care first to affirm my worldview ;-}) I also see several problems with applying these methods effectively in climate change communication. Firstly, how do we get people to listen? The truth about climate change is a dismal tale that has to compete in a world saturated with offerings of feel-good trivia. Secondly, how do we convince people that we, the communicators, should be trusted? People are increasingly and, perhaps rightly, unwilling these days to take anyone's word for anything. Inexpert attempts at framing or oversimplifying risks might even reduce our credibility. Thirdly, how do we change people's minds on climate one meme at a time, when their position is buttressed by an inter-connecting network of many individual misunderstandings (or myths, if you prefer). You can't remove and replace these ideas one by one and expect people to continue to function, any more than you can convert a gas-guzzler to a Nissan Leaf by replacing one spare part at a time. We can't just tinker, people need extreme makeovers. Fourthly, as a more practical matter, how do you apply these techniques to a rebuttal website like this? The guidelines say that myths need a pre-exposure warning, yet on this page, in the top left-hand sidebar, are the top ten climate myths, listed without warning, and you need to click on them to get to the rebuttals. (And the only climate scientists whose names permanently appear on the page are Christy, Spencer and Lindzen. There's no mention of Keeling, Hansen or the IPCC.) This framing doesn't bother me and I'm skeptical about how damaging this is to our communication efforts. I should stop there (less is more, I'm told ;-}). To be clear, I recognize that communicating the serious and urgent nature of climate change to the general public has largely failed and that the simple information deficit model doesn't work. We urgently to improve our performance and the Lewandowsky et al paper is instructive and illuminating in many ways. I just don't think that the recommendations in it will be sufficient; but I'm frankly at a loss to know what else to propose. -
vrooomie at 08:51 AM on 14 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Hmmm...comments 1 and 8, were from SA Dean. The rest were instructive and helpful, in a positive and polite manner, to those 2 posts. At this point, all hear is.... ..crickets. Perhaps SA Dean will be back to engage, but...not being a betting man.... adelady, I too have a bit of a *challenge*, seemingly unendingly battling hyper/fake skeptics; at this point in my life, I think it's all I can do, given the gravity of the situation. Then again, gravity is *only* a theory...>;=D -
Steve Case at 07:26 AM on 14 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
#44 citizenschallengeYour link:
- 135 years of Global Ocean Warming
Excellent talk, I was disappointed that there was no mention of the corrections Josh Willis made to ARGO in 2008.
-
Andy Skuce at 05:10 AM on 14 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Adelady@17: No-one's yet explained to my satisfaction why seismologists get a pass that's not granted to climatologists. Well, seismologists certainly don't always get a free pass, in Italy at least: Scientists face four years in prison for failing to predict earthquake. No doubt James Inhofe would approve. -
r.pauli at 03:43 AM on 14 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Now about this theory of gravity... -
Kevin C at 23:46 PM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean: The argument that the climate system is too complex to understand is an interesting one. Note that it is a knowledge denying rather than a knowledge creating argument. This is typical of climate skeptic arguments - and it is a fingerprint of anti-scientific as opposed to scientific arguments. You can see exactly the same thing going on in other anti-science campaigns. But is it true? Well, no. All you have to do is look at the data to see that it is false. Let me show you. Here is a picture of some of the stronger influences on climate (forcings) - top - and the total of the forcings compared to global temperatures - bottom.
It should be immediately obvious that there is a fairly simple relationship between the two, falsifying the complexity argument.
But they could be more similar. We need to add in one further factor: The fact that, like an oven, the earth takes a little while to respond to it's control knob. See the red lines in the following figure:
This very simple model (20 lines of code) is able to explain 20th century climate pretty well, and project ~50 years into the future. (In fact we now know some of the remaining discrepancies are due to biases in the temperature measurements, not problems with the model!). And it gives the same kind of answers as climate models, estimates from the glacial cycle, and estimates from deep geological time. For a full version of this calculation including uncertainties, see Padilla, Vallis & Rowley 2011.
(Why didn't Hansen do this calculation? Because he didn't have the detailed forcing measurements, and most importantly, the results of the critical last 25 years of our experiment on the atmosphere. He has done it since.)
That's just one line of evidence of many, based on one observable of many. We could look at many more. If you want just one, then look at the Earth's IR spectrum - a pure prediction from theory which was later tested by satellite. Also how it has changed over time.
To put together a probability of climate science being wrong, we'd need to assimilate the probabilities of all the observations fitting a wrong theory, and have an alternative theory which could explain all those observations. And now we run into a piece of social evidence which relates to the initial argument. If we start looking at the alternative hypotheses, we start to see a pattern. The consensus theory is a single consistent theory which explains almost all the available data of many different types from the last 600m years. The alternative hypotheses advanced by different skeptics are inconsistent, and without exception address only a single period and type of data. In other words, they do not appear to be knowledge-building in the way real science does. They have the fingerprint of anti-science.
That's only a start. We can look at the social, political and funding structures. If you haven't read 'Merchants of Doubt', that would be a good place to start. Is it likely that the same actors, financial motivations, and communications strategies which were part of a misinformation campaign when it came to smoking or DDT have suddenly got it right (despite the financial interests) when it comes to climate science.
I don't think anyone has attempted a holistic estimate of the probability of climate science being wrong - the most I have seen is Knutti and Hegerl on the range of likely climate sensitivities - a single variable, ignoring all the additional observations of individual components of the system. Quantifying the social aspects would be harder, but they are going to further reduce rather than increase the chances.
-
citizenschallenge at 21:46 PM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
hope I'm not being too far off topic here but UCTV's "Perspectives on Ocean Science" has an excellent recent lecture regard the gathering of ocean temperature measurements. 135 Years of Global Ocean Warming "... Dean Roemmich, Scripps physical oceanographer and study co-author, as he describes how warm our oceans are getting, where all that heat is going, and how this knowledge will help scientists better understand the earth's climate. Learn how scientists measured ocean temperature during the historic voyage of the HMS Challenger (1872-76) and how today's network of ocean-probing robots is changing the way scientists study the seas. (#23999) " -
adelady at 19:18 PM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Oh, and I should say .... The information model is terrific and I seriously do my best to apply it. I try. But it can be a bit tiring when you're dealing simultaneously with a hyperskeptic and a Gaia believer. I do hold my temper. I do keep on keeping on. I do remember that it's the lurkers who really matter. But I do get a bit fed up. Hey ho. -
adelady at 19:09 PM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
chriskoz. I especially like to set tectonic plate theory alongside climate theory. No-one sensible expects earth scientists to predict exactly when earthquakes or volcanic eruptions will occur. No-one was especially surprised that the Christchurch earthquake happened along a fault line that had not previously been identified. We all know and accept that it's not possible to know absolutely everything about the effects of these processes in advance. We'd like to do more but we know that's a bit much for current technology. Very much like climatologists can't yet determine with current technology exactly where energy is going or when and where it will show up again. No-one's yet explained to my satisfaction why seismologists get a pass that's not granted to climatologists. -
Philippe Chantreau at 14:29 PM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Dale, without being pedantic, the name is Hansen, with an e. I'm sure you can verify that in the paper you cite. -
DSL at 14:22 PM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Ugh: Puckrin et al. 2004 -
chriskoz at 11:06 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
gws@10, I like the simplicity of your 2 short points that summarise the main problems with SA Dean's logic (improbable expectations) about climate science. Let's give some real examples of scientific findings that have been largely accepted in the past, even though their level of scientific understanding were lower than most aspects of climate science (e.g. double-role of CO2 as a forcing or feedback) known today: 1.CFC release causes strato-O3 depletion 2.Smoking signifficantly increases probability lung cancer 3.Continental plates are moving as the result of processes in Earth' mantle 4.Rutherford imperfect atom model (SA Dean's favorite example of "uncertainties in scinece") was and still is tought in schools as a useful approximation; Niels Bohr model extends it rather than contradicting it (no matter how much SA Dean would like to contradict it). Some of the above examples, even today, are still understood with less cetainty than the science of AGW. The second dillema - at what level of certainty the negative concequences must be acted upon - is also simple from the historical perspective. The first two on my list (negative env/health concequences) have been acted upon (with less certainty), with success. -
michael sweet at 10:16 AM on 13 October 2012How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Trunkmonkey, The ocean does heat proportionately to the warming atmosphere. You have forgotten to take into account the fact that the heat capacity of the ocean is 1000 times greater than the atmosphere. You would expect 1000 times as much energy to go into the ocean as into the atmosphere. The graph in the other thread shows energy absorbed. As expected, the ocean has absorbed much more energy. You now agree that a mechanism for ocean warming exists but claim the magnitude is incorrect. Previously you claimed that "The problem is there is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans". You are not arguing in good faith. -
Robert Murphy at 09:55 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
"The Earth and nested within that, its climate are complex systems. By its very nature, it is impossible to definitively understand the entire workings of the system with certainty." Science isn't about absolute certainty. "Consensus definitely doesn’t mean fact." Nobody claims it does. "Most often, the consensus is right but two major scientists on which our society is based were known for going strongly against the consensus. Newton and Darwin. As at our current and best knowledge state, they were right and yet they were ridiculed." Both had the main points of their theories accepted almost immediately. Newton was lionized. Evolution was accepted almost immediately after the publication of The Origin of Species. "What I am criticizing is how AGW is considered FACT." It *is* a fact. "Facts" are not absolutes that never can be questioned. They are conditional, like all knowledge about the world. "Can you really provide an answer with 100% certainty?" We can't say anything will happen with 100% certainty. So? Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing. Maybe you should read less postmodernist books and more science books. -
Jennyg at 08:38 AM on 13 October 2012Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
They could certainly improve on modelling, they got the trends so I think they're on the right track. We must not however rely solely on this kind of data, there's a lot of errors. -
Antarctica is gaining ice
TimH - Because science is about looking at the full body of evidence. While 'skeptic' denial is often about looking at cherry-picked data, only the data that appears to support their points. It's quite important to not cherry-pick. You're quite correct, Antarctic sea ice increase is barely significant, while Arctic ice decrease is extremely significant to the point of being appalling (something the 'skeptics' appear to be hiding from, sticking fingers in ears and singing "lalalala!"). Interestingly enough, this effect of some increase in Antarctic ice is consistent with warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Manabe 1991 Part 1 and Part 2 (a H/T to Rabett Run for the pointer) found when modeling Antarctic effects that increased precipitation from GHG warming led to fresher surface waters, suppressing convection from warmer lower waters through a steeper halocline, and thus slightly decreasing sea surface temperatures and increasing sea ice. Manabe's ideas weren't (at that time) widely held, as far as I can see, but he appears to have correctly predicted current observations by taking into account additional factors like halocline changes. Really (IMO) an interesting result. Note that this means warmer sub-surface water is not cooling as much, retaining more energy, and thus the reduced convection is a positive feedback to warming - effectively insulating, keeping the energy in the oceans. And those warmer sub-surface waters continue to melt Antarctica from beneath at the edges. Something I suspect 'skeptics' will not be pointing out. So - an unexpected observation leading to a better understanding? That's what science is about... -
Tom Dayton at 07:38 AM on 13 October 2012How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
trunkmonkey, I apologize for my comment to you being off base; I neither read nor typed carefully. I saw your response briefly before it was deleted for being off topic. Please repeat your comment here on this thread.Moderator Response: Sorry, I might have incorrectly deleted trunkmonkey's response for being off topic, because I was skimming and thought it was posted on the other thread rather than this one. If so, please comment again here, trunkmonkey. -
Dale at 07:09 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Bernard J @31 Please read the link I supplied above. Hanson explains the slowdown in global warming (according to the graphs) is illusory due to the negative masking of successive La Ninas and the lowest solar minimum in the satellite record. So if you want $100 for your naughty jar, I ain't paying till Hanson does. -
TimH at 05:59 AM on 13 October 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
I don't understand why you acknowledge that the Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing, since it seems to me that any supposed increase is statistically insignificant. Decadal averages (the linked plot is to Cryosphere Today Sea Ice Areas, which I averaged) indicate that there is no significant trend in Antarctic Sea Ice areas. The averages for the '80s, '90s, and 2000's are virtually identical. The clear and accelerating melting trend for the arctic (CT data again) is something else entirely. I'm puzzled as to why you've given the deniers even an inch on this. -
Tom Dayton at 05:34 AM on 13 October 2012How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Responding to trunkmonkey from another, inappropriate, thread: Your contention that UV from the atmosphere cannot transfer energy to the ocean is incorrect, as scaddenp noted months ago in the comment immediately above this one. For yet another place to learn how that works, see this RealClimate post. -
trunkmonkey at 04:22 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Michael Sweet, I acknowledge that a warmer atmosphere recieves less radiation from the ocean but argue that resulting ocean warming should be proportional to atmospheric warming. Bernard J., The warming you discuss is from UV which cannot come from greenhouse gasses.Moderator Response: Now you are solidly in the domain of a different post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats the Ocean. Put further comments on this topic there, not here. Everyone else, respond there, not here. Off topic comments here will be deleted without warning. -
dana1981 at 03:43 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Thanks GrantA0017, and thanks to everyone who congratulated us on the paper, which we're very excited about. -
Composer99 at 03:41 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
DSL: Your link to Puckrin et al is broken. -
YubeDude at 03:13 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SOP for denialist sophistry is to request "empirical proof". Asking for the unobtainable as though "proof" or the statement of a "100% fact" can somehow falsified the generally accepted state of scientific understanding. To the lay-public or for those who watch Hannity this bridge too far appears to be both logical and reasonable; it is neither. -
Bernard J. at 03:12 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Trunkmonkey. You say that "there is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans". Have you ever waded into a shallow lagoon or lake early on a summer morning, and then again in the mid afternoon? If so, did you observe a difference? If so, what caused that difference? And if there was a cause for that difference, can you infer how the actions of 'greenhouse' gases might replicate that effect? -
GrantA0017 at 02:57 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
I'm very sorry about that I accidentally commented that but back to the point. I really liked the points you made and how you got to several different ideas in just one post and went into deep ideas about all of them. All in all I really liked you post, thank you for the time you put into it. -
GrantA0017 at 02:55 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
I really enjoyed your post. I really liked how you put in graphs and pictures and helped explain them really well after you talked about them. I really liked all the points you made -
michael sweet at 02:34 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Trunkmonkey, In your previous comment on this thread you said "The problem is there is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans". In the comments DB linked you discussed the mechanism. I will summarize for you: The ocean absorbs energy from the sun and is warmer than the air. Energy is transferred from the ocean to the cold air. AGW warms the air. Less energy is transferred from the ocean to the warmer air. The ocean warms since it retains more energy. If you wish to argue the mechanism is incorrect this is the wrong thread to post to. Claiming the mechanism does not exist when you know it does is not making an argument in good faith. -
DSL at 02:30 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean, watch it with the "proponents of AGW." No scientist I know is a proponent of AGW. All of them accept the theory of AGW, but none want it to happen. Further to Michael's comment, you're never going to get 100% certainty on anything. The question, then, becomes "how much certainty do you need to act?" There is an answer to that question, because you manage to overcome uncertainty and act in myriad ways daily. As far as the past and complex systems go, even though the patterns within the system are written in the Earth, we don't actually need paleo studies or the Vostok record to support the theory of AGW. All we need is direct measurement of the theorized effect. We have that--at surface and from space. See Puckrin et al. (2004), for one example. That energy is building up in the system is almost 100% certain. Where that energy is going is now the task at hand. The complexity of that circulation is daunting, but it doesn't wipe away the fact that the energy is going to continue to build up and continue to be circulated. If we're off a few percentage points with regards to the amounts going into the oceans, ice mass loss, and tropospheric temp, well we'll get better. We have gotten better. CMIP5 is better. AR5 will discuss this improvement next year. -
gws at 02:30 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
There is some interesting philosophy here: 1. At what level do we consider the level of evidence and related confidence high enough to speak of a "fact" 2. What level of "certainty" about a consequence (e.g. warming and its impact) is needed for acting on it? The answer to 1. could be given based on historical developments in different fields of science, I guess. While SADean seems to prefer a somewhat extreme (?) level of confidence, the consensus among climate scientists justifies speaking of "fact" IMHO. The answer to 2. varies with your ideology and value system. In most legal systems the bar can be very high, in (scientific) Risk Management it can be much lower. I have yet to see a skeptic intelligently commenting on either 1. or 2. The whole purpose of their actions appears to be to avoid such answers. Okay, back to the actual thread topic ... very helpful handout, thanks! -
michael sweet at 02:11 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean, Thank you forproviding examples that we can discuss. There is no scientific disagreement in the interpretation of the Vostok record. At that time, temperature began to rise, then CO2 rose as a feedback. The increasing CO2 caused more temperature increase. Today the situation is different. Humans are increasing CO2. The temperature is rising as a result of the CO2 pollution. People who tell you this is not understood are misleading you. Please provide your sources of information. Are they blogs or scientific sources? Why do you believe blogs that conflict with well known scientific findings? Weather is complex but the basics are well understood. In 1894 Arhennius calculated by hand a climate sensitivity of 4.5C. The currently accepted range is 2.0-4.5C. The argument that weather is too complex is an argument from ignorance coming from deniers who deliberatly do not try to understand the science. Ask scientists who study climate what is understood, not denier blogs. Darwin's theory was widely accepted immediately. Newton was recognized as a great scientist by his peers. Where do you find these wild claims? If you want to know with 100% certainty you will have to consult a psychic. In science nothing is considered 100%. If you wnat to understand the science I suggest you read more on this blog. The 2007 IPCC report is your best base until the new IPCC report comes out. My impression is that you have been reading a lot of denier blogs. I suggest you begin over as much as you can. You have a lot to unlearn. The science of climate change is well understood. -
SA Dean at 01:47 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Thank you all for the responses Firstly, let me clarify and admit that in the context of this blog I had a different definition of the word “misinformation” in mind. I was under the impression that misinformation was defined as: False, or inaccurate information that is spread without the intention to deceive with disinformation being defined as the same but with the motive to mislead. These definitions contradict the major Dictionary definitions that state: “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive “. Bearing this contradictory definition in mind, I see why my comment gave the wrong message. Now in response to your comments, I agree that proponents of AGW do not intentionally attempt to deceive society. I honestly believe that scientists in climate science sincerely believe in what the data is telling them. This applies to scientists on both sides of the debate. However, I feel that conclusions based on results are somewhat subjective. Lets look at the most popular climate change example of the time-series trend between CO2 and temperature from the Vostok record. I think there are very few who would actually disagree that there wasn’t a strong correlation between the two variables. Where the disagreement comes in, is what is the relation and causation between the two variables? I now take a complexity thinking approach to the following problem based on Cilliers, P. (1998) Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems, London: Routledge. The take home message from this book is that complex systems cannot be studied using the traditional analytical method (breaking the system up into component parts to study) because it neglects the nearly infinite, dynamical, non-linear interactions with other components of the system. Cilliers mentions many other characteristics for a complex system such as uncertainty, feedback loops, open systems that cause boundary problems etc. The Earth and nested within that, its climate are complex systems. By its very nature, it is impossible to definitively understand the entire workings of the system with certainty. However, science provides humanity with the best possible obtainable knowledge about the system. But it is not perfect. We have seen time and time again how theories that were once considered fact were shown to be erroneous as new scientific information came to light. Look at the history of the atom. Going to YubeDubes comments about Peer Review and Journals. Consensus definitely doesn’t mean fact. In order to get an article published in a well-respected journal, the conclusions need to be within well-defined parameters of the consensual agreement. Most often, the consensus is right but two major scientists on which our society is based were known for going strongly against the consensus. Newton and Darwin. As at our current and best knowledge state, they were right and yet they were ridiculed. All this being said, I am not saying that AGW is not occurring. As stated in my first comment, I am actually a very firm believer of it and I am acting on it in my personal capacity. What I am criticizing is how AGW is considered FACT. The science does show overwhelming evidence that AGW is occurring and that it is the most probable cause of accelerated climate change. However, this does not mean that this is actually the case. Tying this in with the complexity thinking argument and in response to Kevin C. a) Is it warming? ….. Most certainly. No one could argue that b) Why is it warming? And c) what will happen in the future? … Can you really provide an answer with 100% certainty? If so, then I retract my entire argument. More likely, based on all your acquired knowledge, the majority of the convincing evidence you have been exposed to suggest the most likely cause of warming being AGW. The same is true for me, which is why I am a proponent. However this does not make us right. It just means that we are more likely to be right. Looking at the other side of the debate, I do not deny that there is a more manufactured state of scientific backing. I am merely suggesting that not all arguments from the “skeptic” side are implausible just because some are out-rightly invented. And although it is unlikely based on the scientific evidence, the skeptics may still be right, even though their methods may be questionable. I hope this clarifies my initial comment to a certain degree. I ask you kindly to respond to this comment, after having hopefully better explained my thinking. -
trunkmonkey at 01:39 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
@DB My prior comments about the "skin layer" are consistent with the comment above.Warming the top angstrom of the layer would decrease the efficiency of conduction from below, but it would increase the radiative efficiency at the surface. -
Composer99 at 01:10 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Let me be the first to say congratulations to John Cook for being a part of this publication. -
DSL at 00:30 AM on 13 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
I suggest we not pile it on. If SA Dean has an integrity, s/he will respond. I second YubeDude's request for evidence of scientists providing misinformation to the public. -
chriskoz at 00:16 AM on 13 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
From Peru@32, I don't know the statistics, but I guess the examples of extremely rude, offensive, swearing language you are pointing to, would be extremely rare. Lubos Motl, by the very nature of his language, is so repulsive that no one should take him seriously, so his readership is likely marginal. As Mike Mann once said, rebutting the talk at that kind of level is like: "Stepping into the mudhole to wrestle pigs. Pigs would love you to start wrestling but you cannot afford to waste your energy doing it". And I agree. Posting Nuccitelli et al. (2012) paper over there does not make sense to me. Better leave the pigs alone, do not create illusion in their minds that someone seriously listen to them. I agree it's worth talking to people like president Václav Klaus, but that must go through some different channels, not through Lubos' blog. -
chriskoz at 23:27 PM on 12 October 2012Jerry Mitrovica: Current Sea Level Rise is Anomalous. We've Seen Nothing Like it for the Last 10,000 Years
Agnostic@20,Metrovica’s analysis predicts sea level rise of 6-8 metres by 2100
I wonder where he said it, becuase that would be an extraordinary claim. In the video, he just said that previous analysis of Eonian maximum SL was 4-6m but he revised it upwards to be 6-8m on average based on his research. He did not say anything about the timeframe in the future when such average would be achieved or I have missed this important detail. -
Rob Painting at 21:49 PM on 12 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Dale - "My question: what can cause the oceans to keep warming (as shown in the 2002-2008 line in the table in the article) when the accumulated heat sources decreased? See the SkS post linked to at #30 by the moderator Dan Bailey. Most readers seem to be able understand that greenhouse gases slow the loss of heat from the atmosphere - well they slow the loss of heat from the ocean too. Given that solar radiation has undergone a decline since the 1960's, I'm genuinely interested if you have ever thought about how the oceans have continued to warm throughout this interval, despite this fall in solar output? There are other considerations, of course, but the greenhouse gas-induced warming of the ocean is the Big Kahuna of global warming. -
YubeDude at 21:29 PM on 12 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean: I am curious as to the details of the point you are implying... "highlight the misinformation that scientists on both sides of the debate are portraying to the public." On what I will call the pro AGW side of the argument, who are the scientist and what is their misinformation? "strongly criticize the manner in which science is being employed." Doesn't the scientific method really only work one way and aren't objective metrics immune to subjective manipulation especially within the peer review community? "[...]preconceived condition. In doing so, conclusions and messages are teased out of the results, which align with the desired goal." Any submission to a respect journal that attempted this would get hammered and reputations would be tarnished. Gerlich-Tscheuschner 2009 learned this out the hard way. Though I would agree with you that there are a number of attempts to sway the debate as you've mentioned, my disagreement is that I don't see them on the pro AGW side of the ledger. -
Kevin C at 20:45 PM on 12 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean: From a lay persons viewpoint it certainly looks as though there is a debate with scientific arguments on both sides. However, let me suggest a possibility: That that appearance is manufactured by one side, and that the actual state of scientific knowledge is very different to the perceived state. If that were the case, then in order to create the appearance of uncertainty, it would be necessary to create objections and uncertainties which sound scientifically plausible to the lay person. If the core elements of the scientific case were well founded in overwhelming evidence, then the falsity of those objections would be obvious to anyone who had sufficiently grounded themselves in the science and in particular in the underlying evidence, but may be completely opaque to anyone who had not. As far as I can tell, there are two approaches an interested person can use to determine whether this is the case: 1. Scrupulously check every claim by the scientific sources (i.e. not NGOs, think tanks or media) on each side to determine the chain of evidence on which it is based. If one side turns out to consistently making unfounded arguments, that is suggestive. 2. Sufficiently familiarise yourself with the science to be able to check the fundamental claims. This is surprisingly simple, as there are only three claims relevant to public policy: a) Is it warming? b) Why is it warming? and c) What will happen in the future? These questions are surprisingly easy to answer: I've posted 60 lines of code in a previous post which can be used to address the first two. The third in much simpler than it was 25 years ago when Hansen was making his statement to congress; thanks to the experiment we have been doing on our atmosphere, you can now get a rough answer with as little as 40 further lines of code. When I apply each of these two methods, they both point the same way. On this basis, I think that you characterization of the situation is not a realistic reflection of the reality. -
bill4344 at 20:45 PM on 12 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean, Can you provide anything to make us credit your comment as anything more than a rather-less-than-novel tone-trolling attempt at thread hijacking? Yours in anticipation... -
michael sweet at 20:35 PM on 12 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean It would be helpful if you gave even a single example of scientists spreading misinformation. You are just putting up a denier talking point. If you provide some specific examples of scientists providing misinformation we can begin to discuss your issue. If you cannot provide specific examples you are just hand waving. The issue in the AGW debate is that there is only one side with data to support their position. Your claim that the true result is somewhere the data and the deniers is unsupported. -
SA Dean at 19:45 PM on 12 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
This practical guide to refuting misinformation appears to be a very helpful tool. By refuting misinformation, a cohesive society can be developed that can dedicate their combined efforts into finding a solution for a problem rather than debating it. HOWEVER, there is no benefit in refuting misinformation only to introduce new misinformation. The purpose of this comment is not to take a particular stance in the Great Climate Change Debate but rather to highlight the misinformation that scientists and politicians on both sides of the debate are portraying to the public. I cannot overstate the value and necessity of science in such a critical time of potential concern but I strongly criticize the manner in which science is being employed. Scientific studies surrounding climate change, in a globally publicized topic of interest, are initialized trying to provide evidence for a preconceived condition. In doing so, conclusions and messages are teased out of the results, which align with the desired goal. These conclusions are then used in an attempt to disprove the opposing side’s conclusions and are treated as fact. The element that concerns me most in this debate is the mutual exclusivity of the opposing sides. I am a firm believer that anthropogenic activities are contributing to climate change but I take the conclusions from both sides of the debate with bitter caution. I believe the results from studies on both sides of the debate provide important information but it is the intensity and absolution of the conclusions that defray the public. Skepticism, like misinformation is a relative term depending on which side of any debate you stand for. “Climate Myths” versus “what the science really says…” ? This is only leading to a different version of misinformation Therefore, in my opinion, this debate consists of: • Society that believes in human-induced climate change • Society that does not believe in human-induced climate change • Society that doesn’t care • And science that is being used inappropriately as a decision swaying tool. The Great Climate Change Debate highlights just how little humanity really understands about the Earth and its environmental processes. I fear that regardless of the real influence of climate change, if science continues to be portrayed in the current manner within the debate, society’s confidence in the discipline of science will be severely weakened. -
From Peru at 17:40 PM on 12 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
I don’t know who trunkmonkey is , but here you can found perhaps one of the most extreme bloggers in the ”climate skeptical” community. In the link there an agrresive attack against Kevin Trenberth, who is called among other things a “hardcore Stalinist” and a then insulted in a way that is so offensive that I cannot quote it without being snipped (read the blog post if your stomach is strong enough). What is more shocking is that this blogger, Lubos Motl, is a superstring theory quantum physicist(perhaps the most advanced area in the physics community), yet he cannot understand the elementary thermodynamics of planetary climate. I suspect that the explanation for the paradox of having people that are scientifically educated yet deny the evidence is ideology, since he believes that the climate consensus is a a “worldwide communist conspiracy” against capitalism and the free market. Maybe he had a trauma with the Stalinist regime decades ago, because he is Czech. What is more sad is that he is not alone in his beliefs. Czech Republic president Václav Klaus believes in this , and had even said things like calling environmentalists "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, market economy and prosperity" and even "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences" along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism”. Not to mention some sectors of the US Republican Party... I have two questions: 1) How widespread are in the physics community this kind of ideas? I used to believe the physics community one of the more liberal and progressive among the scientific community 2) Maybe this skeptical science team paper could be used at Lubos Motl blog to show how wrong he is about the Kevin Trenberth’s “missing heat”(I think a paper will have a zero effect on himself, but maybe it could wake up true skepticism among his readers) -
Bernard J. at 17:29 PM on 12 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Further to Dale's post at #24:...there hasn't been much movement either way in global surface temps (basically flat since 2003)...
ignores the fact that 9 years is far too short an interval in which to distinguish signal from noise, even when there is underlying warming occurring. This point has been raised so many times before that raising it again deserves a hundred bucks in the naughty jar. Others have already addressed the relative sinking of heat energy into the oceans versus the atmosphere but it's probably worth repeating that it's entirely possible to have overall heating of the planet even when solar irradiance is constant, if the usual exist of thermal energy is restricted as happens with the increasing concentration of 'greenhouse' gases, and especially when taking into consideration the fact that it takes decades for equilibrium to be reached in the context of historic carbon emissions, no matter small variations in TSI. I'm surprised that anyone who's read SkS for more than a week is surprised by this. -
trunkmonkey at 15:42 PM on 12 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
The problem is there is no mechanism for greenhouse gasses to warm the oceans. Oceans can warm the atmosphere, but the atmosphere has not been warming. One can argue that a warmer atmosphere would reduce radiative cooling of the oceans, but this would be proportional, and the graph shows ocean warming way out of proportion to the atmosphere. Granting Levitus for the sake of argument,this appears a lagging ocean effect of whatever caused the unusual atmospheric warming between the seventies and the millenium.Moderator Response:[DB] Ah, no. You must've missed this post then: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats The Ocean
Which is odd, considering that you placed comments on it here and here. Please do try to be more internally consistent.
Continued belief in mystical cycles and "lags" lacking physical mechanisms while disregarding and ignoring actual physical mechanisms (that unusual warming effect is largely the increases in CO2 while other forcings were neutral/negative) is simply practicing climastrology.
Prev 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 Next
