Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 Next
Comments 52701 to 52750:
-
scaddenp at 12:57 PM on 15 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Nick, I think most denialists want an excuse to do nothing whether from distaste for environmentalists, Gore, taxes, international treaties etc. Anything half plausible will do to convince themselves. -
Tony O at 12:42 PM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
News Roundup is really useful. (And I agree about the comments adding insight) -
Lloyd Flack at 11:59 AM on 15 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
#32 From Peru, I think climate change denial is more common in physics than in most sciences. As the most basic and fundamental of all the sciences it usually deals with the simplest systems. Too many want a simple mathematical description of what is going on and do not develop a feel for the behaviour of complex systems. Some don't know how to handle observational rather than experimental data. This makes them too likely to accept the simple arguments that denialists make, especially if this fits in with their ideological preferences. This is only a tendency and as far as I know only a minority of physicists fall for it. -
Nick Palmer at 11:30 AM on 15 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean mentions one of the standard denialist obfuscations - that the Earth's systems are too complex to understand which lets them jump to the false conclusion that we cannot know what will happen if we alter the balance of atmospheric gases by injecting extra greenhouse gases. Very simply, we don't need to understand every element of the complexity at all to figure out what will happen - that is a complete red herring. What we need to know is this. Does CO2 have a greenhouse gas effect? (this is certain). Have we/are we still increasing it? (this is certain). Is our increasing the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases causing the planet to heat up to a new equilibrium temperature? (this is certain). How much will Earth heat up? (this is less certain). Only on the very last point is there any legitimate scientific debate at all and most of it concludes that we have a sensitivity of 3 deg C per doubling of CO2. A very small minority of credible scientists (Lindzen, Christy Spencer etc) claim the sensitivity is 1 deg or less per doubling but outside of the science arena this is not relevant to what politicians should be doing. With the certainties known (as above) and the probabilities about which there is some small debate, what politicians need to think about urgently is risk assessment. If sensitivity is 3 deg, then certainly the greenhouse gases we have put up/are still putting up there will cause serious trouble that we won't be able to escape from for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. If sensitivity is a lot less, then nothing much will happen. It all comes down to taking a chance on what you believe if you are not completely up to date with the science which suggests that some feedbacks are much faster than were expected (ice/tundra melt). Faced with Dirty Harry's climate gun should any sane politician gamble that the sensitivity bullet left in his Magnum is a dud or not? Remembering that making the wrong choice can lead to a bad outcome for not only the individuals making the choice but also the rest of the 7 billion here, the political forces have to be asked - do you feel lucky, punks? -
Jonas at 11:16 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
> "From your perspective, does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose?" Yes, absolutely. For guys and girls outside the insider scene, there are four challenges: - what is consolidated science saying? (myths debunked) - how to debunk obvious nonsense, in a fact oriented way? (gish gallops debunked) - what are the science news (New research: not yet consolidated, but worth knowing) - what is the perception/politics/direction/trends worldwide (News Roundup). It's the fourth pillar. The fifth is: "Comments". Which often give really interesting additional insights. -
Tom Curtis at 11:11 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
Doug H @2, news roundup, not weekly digest. -
Tom Curtis at 11:10 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
Agreed with citizenschallenge. The News Roundup along with the weekly listing of new research are likely to be two of the most useful features of SkS. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:08 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
... does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose? Certainly: where else would you put the Toon of the Week? The summary is a good way of catching up when time is limited, or after I have spent some time away from my computer. -
citizenschallenge at 09:52 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #41
Question: "From your perspective, does the new Weekly News Round-Up series serve a useful purpose?" To be blunt... damned straight the Weekly Round-Up series serves a very useful purpose ! And it should definitively be continued. -
empirical_bayes at 09:46 AM on 15 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Sorry, "Kevin C". -
empirical_bayes at 09:42 AM on 15 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
@ Keven C, #19, 13 October. Very very nice. -
empirical_bayes at 09:39 AM on 15 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
@S A Dean, #8, from 13th October, with apologies if this ground has already been covered ... Regarding: "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." Complexity of any system does not permit it to violate basic physical law. For a simple example, if a boundary is drawn around such a system, and all energy and mass flows are accounted for crossing that boundary, then Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy still applies, irrespective of its complexity. Similarly, any of the conservation principles from Classical Mechanics. More complicated rules naturally apply in thermodynamics, but they are nonetheless very sound. What these principles do is allow the calculation of basic physical quantities without having to, e.g., do an ab initio simulation of the system having the physical quantities. That is what gives them such power. "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." There's an equivocation here. That it is not possible to, for example, predict the future state of a complicated, tightly coupled system like Earth with great certainty in 100 years says nothing about the amount of understanding available for any part of it. Indeed, if we take almost any small part of Earth, a part small enough to be subjected to experiment, we already know a great deal about it, and could do excellent prediction for that part. In fact, we know far more about that small part than we need to know to say with 100% certainty that, in the limit, with continued introduction of carbon dioxide at the rate people are producing, human civilization is facing an existential threat. It is in fact the carbon dioxide that is causing that, with 100% certainty. And if that is not the case, then a great deal of the physical science which works so well in other engineering areas, whether solid state or physical biological, is magically wrong here. That's just not possible, because our experiments would fail. So I do claim "AGW is fact" and S A Dean hasn't a tarsus to stand on. What cannot be predicted with certainty is how fast these changes will come, what exactly they will be, or how they will affect any given region on Earth. That is partly a modeling problem, partly a computational problem, and partly a prediction problem. It is partly a modeling problem because the resources needed to build good models of, say, the interactions between large ice masses and atmospheres, or to understand the detailed dynamics of large ice masses have not been invested. But wheter or not we understand how the interior of ice masses will evolve, in detail, or how long it will take we know what will happen to them if we keep increasing atmospheric energy density. It is partly a computational problem because the resources have not been invested in building and learning how to build the enormous numerical simulations such a good prediction will need. We are making progress. We have good concurrent systems for doing these calculations. But there's a lot more to learn about how to do these calculations well at this scale. Finally, this is a prediction problem because making predictions and calculating credible intervals demands good constraints on initial and boundary conditions of the system being simulated, and these require good, comprehensive, synchronized measurements. These are much better than they were, but when a simulation is run, it is begun with an initialization which is approximately like the actual system, not exactly like the actual system, even if the model were perfect. The investments have not been made in the observational system needed to make such synchronized measurements. I argue that the problem has nothing to do with the science of the question. The problem has to do with out miserable economic systems, these being miserable because they are unpredictable, unsteerable, and no one appears to agree what they are, or where they should be. So, it seems to me and always has seemed, that anyone who really wants an improvement to the certainty of the prediction offered by scientific models and the detailed timeline really has an obligation to pony-up the resources needed to do so. If they don't, they really do not care about the answer, and so are being disingenuous, or they are ignorant, or they are taking the position "We're falling. Don't look down." Which is it, S A Dean? -
vrooomie at 09:22 AM on 15 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Jim Eager@28, I respectfully disagree: "Derailing the thread' would look like us "alarmists," or 'adherents to the AGW theory' (take your pick) being at each other's cyberthroats, and we all would be *not* consilient with all we all had postulated before, on the many 1000s of links on SkS. Quite the contrary, IMHO: We have taken SA Dean's postulates, dissected them, exposed them to rational and measured discussion, compared and contrasted them to science, and found SA's conclusions.... to be wanting. THAT is the essence of a successful discussion, n'est pas? From this discussion I've taken away a deeper, finer-grained set of ideas, of ways to counter the same old tripe, just posted in a way that kinda *looks* like agreement with AGW, but is really just another 'lukewarmer' meme. To me, as a working scientist, that yet *another* shining example of precisely what and why SkS is here for....bravo to all! I should be remiss if did not offer a small thanks to SA Dean, for coming in and doing a drive-by... ...crickets. >;-D -
Bob Loblaw at 08:51 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
As for making claims using short time periods, we can only follow the sage advice of Roger Pielke himself (I think it's from Junior, not Senior), who thinks that even thirty years is not enough:"Thirty years is not an appropriate length of time for a climate analysis, much less finding causal factors like climate change," says Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
(as quoted in USA Today) -
dana1981 at 06:53 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
It's also of course important to remember that surface temperatures are a very small fraction of overall global warming, which Nuccitelli et al. (2012) shows has not slowed. -
JosHagelaars at 06:39 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
@KR#2 The HadCrut4 data in the SkS Trend Calculator as well as in the WoodForTrees link does not go any further than December 2010. Using the HadCrut4 4.1.1.0 monthly data from September 1997 to August 2012 I get (using the SkS Trend Calculator uncertainty calculation): +0.033 ± 0.145 °C/decade The range is clearly cherry-picked, it starts with the extraordinary 1998 El Nino. The range ends with the La Nina years 2008 and 2011. In this short period the influence of ENSO and the sun on the global temperature is clearly negative and one would expect the trend to be lower than the long term average. The trend for the last 30 years for the new HadCrut4 is +0.165 ± 0.051 °C/decade, so I would say your conclusion still stands when the data are extended to august 2012. It is absolute nonsense to state that 'Global Warming has stopped' based on such a short time-frame. When you just start 1 year later with the HadCrut4 data, from September 1998 to August 2012, the trend more than doubles: +0.078 ± 0.147 °C/decade Using the same 15 years interval from May 1992 to April 2007 HadCrut4 gives a trend of +0.287 ± 0.151 °C/decade. About 5 years ago the Mail On Sunday would probably have concluded that global warming was getting totally out of control. They should have a look at the SkS Escalator. -
dana1981 at 05:13 AM on 15 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
JoeRG @48 - as you note, the source link from which we obtained our data is no longer available, and the link you provide seems to have somewhat different numbers. Perhaps NOAA updated the dataset over the past 6 months. Regardless, the main conclusions remain unchanged. -
Phil at 04:53 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
KR @2; Your calculated trend of 0.071+/-0.166 C/decade is higher than the historical one stated (or at least implied) by Rose himself in the article; 0.75/13 = 0.057 C/decade. So Rose not only presents evidence for continued warming but also that the warming is accelerating - shame about his headline ! -
John Russell at 04:50 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
I'd like to point out that the UK Met office has almost immediately issued a thorough rebuttal of Rose's article, which clearly reveals how cynical has been his deception of the Daily Mail's readers. -
2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
Lionel A - I should also note another deceptive bit of graphing in that piece from the Mail; the labeling of single timepoints at the start and end of the graph with equal values. That is ridiculous given the variations in the data. I could choose points (from that graph) in mid-2000 and mid-2006 and show a difference of 0.7C, or late 1997 to mid-2007 and show a difference of -0.6C. None of these choices is statistically justifiable. On the other hand, looking at the trend of the entire set of data, even over this statistically insignificant period, you see a trend of 0.071 °C/decade. The very data the Mail graphed disproves their assertion - it is warming. -
2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
Lionel A - Well, to start with, the graph in that article is mislabeled. Using either the SkS Trend Calculator (1997.7) or WoodForTrees (1997.6, zero based decimal year) it's clear that the graph data from the Mail starts in September 1997, excluding cooler temperatures earlier in that year - while the Mail axis is (mis)labeled as if it were the start of 1997. And that displayed data has a rising trend, albeit small and rather noisy - the autocorrelation corrected (i.e., conservative in uncertainty) data shows: Trend: 0.071 ±0.166 °C/decade (2σ), a 2σ range of -0.095 to 0.237. While an upward trend, that's not enough data to exclude either the null hypothesis or the ~0.17 °C/decade long term trend given the variations. And whoever compiled that graph failed to show the statistics. Hmmm... So - this is an argument from insufficient, statistically insignificant data at the 2σ level. If you include enough data to exclude either 0.0 or 0.17 °C/decade (which using the Trend Calculator on HadCRUT4 is two more years of data to ~1995.6) that data indicates that the zero warming null hypothesis is false with a trend of: 0.142 ±0.139 °C/decade (2σ). So when looking at sufficient data to statistically call either warming or no warming? Warming. This is yet another 'skeptic' claim from insufficient data, with cherry-picked intervals, and absolutely no statistics - to put it bluntly, bullpucky. -
Jim Eager at 04:10 AM on 15 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
With just two posts SA Dean managed to achieve the purpose he intended, namely to reinforce myths and derail the thread. -
Lionel A at 03:15 AM on 15 October 20122012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #5
I see that David Rose has another dreadful piece of creative writing in the Mail this weekend. I am trying to track down the Ben Weller of that 'temperature graph' to discover what it is based upon as I smell a Monckton Manoeuvre here. -
Kevin C at 01:15 AM on 15 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
Here's an alternative analogy: Suppose there is an asteroid on collision course with Earth. When it is first spotted, the uncertainty in the observations is such that the scientists only give a 1% chance of it hitting Earth. Next year it is up to 10%. Next year 50%, then 90%, then 99%, then 99.99%. At what point do you mobilize the global economy to act? How is the decision influenced by the fact that the cost of action increases massively the longer you wait. -
John Russell at 20:47 PM on 14 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
I guess the most obvious question to ask is; in the light of JC's 'debunking recommendations', how would we change the responses to 'the most common climate myths', which are the core of this website, to make them more effective? Clearly -- as so often becomes clear -- providing the scientific facts is not enough to convince many people, as there are so many other psychological processes going on in their minds which distort the facts by overlaying them with other beliefs and agenda. * * * With regard to SA Dean's need for absolute proof of both the science and outcome of AGW, I offer an analogy which I have used with some success in discussions. Anyone who proposed to walk across a 6-lane highway in the rush hour for a bet, might want to first work out the chances of their being killed. If a scientist was asked to compute the odds, he'd need to know what traffic-avoiding tactics the walker might employ; the walk speed, the width of carriage way, the number and type of vehicles passing, the type of road surface and the weather conditions. Then he'd build a model and run it many times before being able to provide an estimate of the chance of survival. Could he ever say for certain? No, he couldn't. He could never say for a 'FACT' (SA Dean) that the walker would or wouldn't be killed. Could he say with enough accuracy to offer advice? Damn right. So is it worth taking the chance? Well depending on the size of the bet and how much the walker values their life, it might be. But that's the walker's decision, for him alone and not on behalf of other people. So that's why when it comes to making policy decisions, the scientific process -- however rigorous -- might not be able to give us the unequivocal answers some people would like. We shouldn't expect them to. But when scientists working in specific area of climate change say, "we're deeply concerned by what our work shows...", it would be wise to take them very seriously. -
JoeRG at 18:29 PM on 14 October 2012Nuccitelli et al. (2012) Show that Global Warming Continues
Dear Mr. Nuccitelli As I understand it, the Table 1 of the paper only consists of the OHC and LAI anomalies converted into the necessary forcings. First, the link to the NOAA OHC data [11] in your paper is a dead link. It ends with the error 550: No such file or directory. Second, using the data available under http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html (I cannot imagine that NOAA hosts different data series for just one subject) and recalculating your OHC forcing brings the following results: Time 0-700 m [W/m²] 700-2000 m [W/m²] 1970-2008 0.335 0.137 1980-2008 0.276 0.187 1990-2008 0.401 0.228 2000-2008 0.450 0.217 2002-2008 0.383 0.197 Third, how can the standard errors of the greater time ranges be smaller although the standard error of the origin data for e.g. 1970 (+/-0.94*10^22 J) is larger by a factor of 5 compared to 2008 (+/-0.161*10^22 J)? So, what have I missed? -
gpwayne at 17:31 PM on 14 October 2012A comprehensive review of research into misinformation
SA Dean: I have a few points I would like to make to you regarding your two posts, some of which have already been touched on by others: "Scientific studies surrounding climate change, in a globally publicized topic of interest, are initialized trying to provide evidence for a preconceived condition". All scientific investigations are advanced by positing a 'preconceived condition', which is normally referred to as a hypothesis. What you infer in your posts, however, is confirmation bias, where data are ignored, massaged or otherwise distorted, or methods are inadequate to the task of testing the hypothesis comprehensively. This issue is, of course, known to scientists who, in response, employ the scientific method to ensure that such bias is rooted out by independant testing. A recent demonstration of the efficacy of this method is cold fusion, in which eminent and respected scientists none the less found themselves on the wrong side of their own confusion (however it was caused). The important point to note is that cold fusion was debunked by better (i.e. more rigorous) science - and not by opinion. "In doing so, conclusions and messages are teased out of the results, which align with the desired goal". This accusation, unsupported by a single example, is similar in my view to discussions of motive, which I find specious and weak. If you wish to make such an accusation, and it be credible, it is necessary to provide evidence. Accusations based on vague generalisations are too reminiscent of the very misinformation you claim to abhor. "These conclusions are then used in an attempt to disprove the opposing side’s conclusions and are treated as fact" There is a broader context to this remark, which is your mistaken conviction there are 'opposing sides' - for there are not. While science is certainly competetive, it is not adversarial. Adversarial systems depend on both sides having arguments of equal merit. In politics, for example, one's opinions about the best social systems remain just that: opinions. There is no 'proof' that one way of living is better than another, so either side can claim validity without disproving the opposing viewpoint. (This is also, regrettably, the foundation of demagoguery, since claim and counter-claim require nothing more than the air expended in the expression). Again, referring to your concern to limit misinformation, it seems unfortunate that you choose to repeat and propagate one of the principle myths of climate denial - that science is somehow divided, that there is a debate raging within the scientific community. There is not: as many studies have demonstrated, 97% of climate scientists agree with the broad position documented by the IPCC. Only a small, and increasingly discredited, number of qualified scientists take issue with the science, and do so without being able to publish adequate scientific examinations of their own dissent using the scientific method I referred to above. For your claim to be valid - that there are two sides - both sides have to have credible, but mutually exclusive scientific theories, backed up by empirical evidence. This is clearly not the case: the most damning evidence against 'the other side' of the climate debate is the shocking absence of any rigorous science, a point that this site set out to prove by debunking every bit of bad science employed by those who would take issue with the anthropogenic component of climate change, or the danger it poses to us all. "I believe the results from studies on both sides of the debate provide important information..." Again, an assertion unsupported by evidence. What studies have 'the other side' originated that contain valid science, and why does this science (if it exists) place it on the 'other side' of the debate? "...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". I agree, but your concern seems ironic given the way you have portrayed climate science as being selective, biased and adversarial. I don't think you're helping, frankly. "...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." I regret that, once more, you employ a common myth as the premise of your argument. Who, exactly, consider AGW to be 'fact'? No scientist worth his weight in litmus paper would make such a foolish statement, since there are no facts at all in science (except in those branches where mathematical proofs can be employed). What science deals with are probabilities, and the reason most of us think 'the science is settled' is not because it has passed into some realm of factuality, but because the probabilities are now so overwhelming, the consilience between disciplines so consistent, the body of empirical evidence so strong and growing continually, and because there are no other theories whatever that can withstand even the most basic scrutiny - again, I refer you to the work of this site as demonstration of the hundreds of flawed attempts to concoct a hypothesis that points the responsibility for climate change in some direction other than human agency. In the decades leading up to the shocking loss of Arctic ice this year, virtually no science - none at all - has lowered the probability of human agency, nor reduced the potential for egregious damage. It is easy to make accusations, to offer opinions that are dressed as facts, and to speak to motive. If your concerns are genuine, I would ask you to consider that perhaps your own arguments speak to confirmation bias that you have not yet identified, and the premises of them are vague, without merit or supporting evidence. In isolation, I'm sure that the problems you describe have occurred, and will do so again. But the sweep of research is so vast, and the results so keenly examined, I believe that your concerns do not reflect the actuality of climate science, but something more personal. -
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.
Prev 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 Next
