Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 Next
Comments 54751 to 54800:
-
Mal Adapted at 06:17 AM on 6 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
funglestrumpet @ 31: DesmogBlog maintains a denier database. Their entry on Pat Michaels is here. It includes some funding info. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 06:03 AM on 6 September 2012Interactive online map shows over 100 years of local US weather
Expanding your comparison from summer to 'whole year' permits a broader speculation (though the maps are largely the same). One can imagine a cooling effect from air pollution (mostly from coal burning) carried eastward by the prevailing winds. Which shows up over the longer period, post 1895, in relatively cooler temperatures downwind. But over a shorter period, post 1970,the cooling outcome resulting from the earlier warmer temperatures would not be included. So in our simple post-1970 story, the warming effect of increasing CO2 is acting alongside the effect of the 1970 Clean Air Act. -
funglestrumpet at 04:21 AM on 6 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
dana @ 33 Thanks! Just a thought: if scientists disagree, I am sure I am not alone in taking the advice 'to follow the money' to heart. Perhaps a permaneant link to those other sources of such information might help all those who come here for clarification on this issue. There are many for whom this issue is recognised as more than academic; they see it as their and their children's future. -
DSL at 04:07 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Doug, there's built-in irony here, too. Consider the intense scrutiny of Lewandowsky on the one hand and the complete lack of scrutiny of the "climategate" allegations. As gallopingcam . . . err . . . Geoff Chambers (sorry, mixed the two threads) said, the damage is already done in the public mind. So too with climategate. Does GC think we'll be hearing about Lewandosky in the climate-related comment mainstreams, perhaps to the same extent that climategate is mentioned? Not a chance, even though the basis in reason for the SL paper is much more sound than that of the climategate allegations. Has Bishop Hill, WUWT, CA, or any of the usual suspects ever issued a standing statement of rejection of the climategate allegations (and reminded the garbage floating in their comment streams)? If not, nitpicking over the SL paper does seem slightly . . . Foxgoose, are you suggesting that the hundreds of scientists of the IPCC who are summarizing the work of thousands of climate scientists (a whole branch of science) are twisting that science to meet a pre-defined (by politicians) conclusion? And all while none of the scientists whose work has been used are making substantial complaints about that twisting? Or is it that the scientists had been coming to that conclusion for decades and only recently have politicians decided to what sort of consensus and consequences might be at hand? -
Doug Bostrom at 04:00 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Foxgoose, I wonder if you're familiar with the Monnett case? As an exercise, could you indulge us by diagramming the path of apparently undetectable yet simultaneously powerful and specific political direction leading from the United Nations down to the level of Monnett? Perhaps you can think of another example to show. -
Composer99 at 03:58 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Foxgoose, your claims regarding climate science & the IPCC are completely and unequivocally false. (I originally wrote 'as far as I can see' but decided upon review to omit that qualifier as it appears unnecessary.) I might add they are quite off-topic for this thread. Searching for 'IPCC' in the search box will lead you to an appropriate thread where you can further develop your claims if you wish. If you wish to persist, please demonstrate, with reference to methodologies, techniques, and data analysis, that a significant fraction (say, 5%) of papers contributing to any given IPCC report are inadequate, and that these inadequacies follow from the IPCC's "politically led and inspired 'science'", on an appropriate thread. I have seen claims similar to yours advanced in the past (such as by Donna Laframboise), and such claims inevitably end up being so much hot air for lack of substantiation. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:47 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
As far as amusing threads go, I think the "waste heat" threads are in close competition, especially as they've also got the feature of built-in irony. -
Foxgoose at 03:39 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
doug_bostrom at 03:16 AM on 6 September, 201Moderator Response: [DB] Further block quoting of entire comments will result in summary deletion of your comment. Adherence to the Comments Policy is not optional, waivable by personal fiat. Your continued posting privileges are not a right. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:20 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
This is perhaps the most amusing thread I have ever read at SkS. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:16 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
A great many people are sceptical, however, of the politically led and inspired "science" which grew out of the UN inspired IPCC. But let's be clear, not a conspiracy. Sounds like a conspiracy, has the same effect as a conspiracy, but is not a conspiracy. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:13 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Further to CBDunkerson, it's not just one branch of science that's supposedly included in the conspiracy. As knock-on effects of geophysics reverberate into biology and numerous other arenas of inquiry, researchers in those fields who notice and then remark on observed changes are dragged down into to the mental pit being dug by the conspiratorially-minded sect of ostriches. They have to be, because in order for the plot to make sense in its own hermetic way the envelope of inclusion needs to be expanded to accommodate and explain away new findings. As Lewandowsky's case shows, things become really interesting when social scientists become intrigued by climate change. We're now seeing the emergence of something of a Klein bottle or the like in the way of conspiracy thinking; the conspiracy is being folded back on itself into a weird and tortured topology order to explain away the conspiracy itself. There's really no end to it, except increasing embarrassment for everybody. -
Foxgoose at 03:11 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
CBDunkerson at 02:56 AM on 6 September, 2012 How can being 'skeptical' of an entire branch of science, conducted by thousands of scientists over the course of centuries, not in and of itself constitute belief in a conspiracy theory? I don't think anyone is sceptical of any "entire branch of science". A great many people are sceptical, however, of the politically led and inspired "science" which grew out of the UN inspired IPCC. As far as I'm aware, there has never been a precedent in free democratic societies for science to be politically directed to reach a specific conclusion - although there have been several precedents in totalitarian societies. -
Foxgoose at 03:00 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Correction to post 73. "August 23rd" should of course have been "September 23rd" -
dana1981 at 02:59 AM on 6 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
funglestrumpet @31 - while we might mention an individual or group's funding sources in a blog post, SkS is above all else about the science, which is why we focus on scientific statements and not funding. If you're interested in information about funding sources, sites like SourceWatch and Exxon Secrets are good resources. This is probably what you were thinking of regarding Pat Michaels. -
CBDunkerson at 02:56 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Geoff wrote: "The survey is all about linking scepticism of climate science to belief in conspiracy theories." How can being 'skeptical' of an entire branch of science, conducted by thousands of scientists over the course of centuries, not in and of itself constitute belief in a conspiracy theory? The only way you can arrive at 'skepticism' of the overwhelming balance of data is by imagining a vast scientific conspiracy. Heck, Foxgoose is advancing a conspiracy theory about what Lewandowsky hypothetically would have done had 'skeptic' blogs responded to his request and provided different results. Face it. Lewandowsky's survey just stated the obvious. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:43 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Very scientific, Foxgoose. "I think things might/might not have been different, if something else was different." A concrete case if ever there was one. As the wag on Lewandowsky's site remarked and extending the point, if McIntyre spent more time reading his own mail and less time burrowing into email not addressed to him, McIntyre's acolytes could have been part of the survey and then we'd be able to see your speculation resolved. -
AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Foxgoose - The facts of the matter are that McIntyre did not respond, and that Lewandowski announced based on the data he had. You are also, IMO, making an unwarranted assumption that McIntyre's responses would have materially changed the results - that's merely speculation on your part. And as Tom Curtis noted, any response from McIntyre now would be inevitably biased by the preliminary results. --- My impression (my opinion only) is that the complaints by GeoffChambers and Foxgoose are driven more by the results of the Lewandowski study than the methodology. Which, in itself, is supportive of Lewandowskis conclusions... -
John Russell at 02:35 AM on 6 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
Hey Bert, #28, that was an interesting link -- I'd never come across 'brinicles' before. Thanks! -
Foxgoose at 02:28 AM on 6 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Tom Curtis at 08:50 AM on 5 September, 2012 (-Blockquote of entire comment snipped-) Well, we know from Steve McIntyre today that his reminder email asking him to post the questionnaire came on August 23rd, the exact day of Lewandowsky's presentation - so I guess you'll agree there is a problem. You seem to be a fair minded chap, Tom - can you honestly say you believe that, if Stephan had received later responses from sceptics blogs which invalidated his "preliminary conclusion", he (-snip-). (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Presumptions of intent to deceive snipped. Further willful violations of the Comments Policy would be ill-advised. -
CBDunkerson at 02:14 AM on 6 September 2012CO2 lags temperature
opd68, the 'upswing and downswing solar forcings' are actually just the onset and completion of a single cycle. That is, as the Northern hemisphere tilts more towards the Sun it receives more sunlight and then as the tilt swings back it receives less. I'm not sure what you mean about 'breaking the equilibrium'. By definition if you have a forcing you don't have equilibrium. When the 'sign' of the forcing changes the feedbacks do so as well. There is no 'barrier' which needs to be broken in order for this to happen. There are several reasons Antarctic temps rose faster than the global average. First, it was experiencing warming due to the shutdown of Atlantic circulation (which basically pulls cold water North) plus global warming from rising CO2 levels... A+B > B alone. Second, there is less water vapor in colder climes and thus increased CO2 levels have a greater warming impact in those areas than they do in warm areas. Third, melting ice exposes darker land and ocean beneath... which absorbs more sunlight and thus warms faster than areas which had exposed land/ocean to begin with. As to the 'warming plateau', this period is generally called the Younger Dryas and there are a number of theories on its cause. All involve some other forcing coming in to play and temporarily offsetting the ongoing solar forcing / CO2 & ice feedback trend. It is anomalous compared to most previous interglacial periods and thus generally considered some kind of random (rather than regularly recurring) event... asteroid impact, increased volcanism, huge freshwater Lake Agassiz suddenly draining into the ocean, et cetera. So the warming trend was really a 'single ongoing event'... just temporarily interrupted by something else. -
funglestrumpet at 01:55 AM on 6 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
I seached for any information regarding any funding that he might have received from what might be considered 'undesirable' sources, but found none. I think such information would be valuable. I found something about Patrick Michaels recently, but have forgotten where. I think I just assumed that should I need it again, this site was bound to have it. Wrong! This information would help in forming an opinion regarding someone's veracity and it would best be found under their'skeptics' section entry. If none is known, then perhaps it should clearly state 'no known funding issues' or such like. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 01:42 AM on 6 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
NSIDC has just issued another report on the Arctic sea ice - click here. Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice.... ...In 2012, the rate of ice loss for August was 91,700 square kilometers (35,400 square miles) per day, the fastest observed for the month of August over the period of satellite observations. In August 2007, ice was lost at a rate of 66,000 square kilometers (25,400 square miles) per day, and in 2008, the year with the previous highest August ice loss, the rate was 80,600 square kilometers (31,100 square miles) per day. -
dana1981 at 01:08 AM on 6 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
Kevin @26 - thanks, I've updated the graphic in the post. -
Steve Case at 01:03 AM on 6 September 2012Interactive online map shows over 100 years of local US weather
There's Climate at a Glance: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html -
Doug Bostrom at 00:48 AM on 6 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Just as a helpful point of comparison and ignoring a few peripheral but important issues of packaging etc. diesel yields some 45MJ/kg, just-within-view lithium/air rechargeable batteries ~9MJ/kg. Figuring in the Carnot cycle's annoying features, that puts batteries in shouting distance of diesel, ignoring logistical issues such as charging batteries versus refueling w/diesel, etc. -
Bert from Eltham at 00:37 AM on 6 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
I kmow this is only vaguely connected but it is worth a look. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/15835017 Bert -
John Brookes at 00:27 AM on 6 September 2012Interactive online map shows over 100 years of local US weather
Nice graphs. Thanks! -
Bernard J. at 23:17 PM on 5 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
It's funny, we're all looking for some SF techno fixes when there are so many carbon neutral technologies available.
There was an old woman who swallowed a fly... -
opd68 at 23:08 PM on 5 September 2012CO2 lags temperature
Thanks CBD although note an underlying frustration. Please note that these are honest questions and not intended to do anything other than improve my own knowledge. So, to clarify, in reference to the first question/response am I correct in saying that there is a solar-related forcing to trigger the upswing, and a (obviously different) solar-related forcing to trigger the downswing? The warming trigger is enough to break the equilibrium and then the temp/CO2 feedback/forcing continues to a higher equilibrium via the process described in the Topic (as you describe also). The cooling trigger is then enough to break from the higher equilibrium and the equal but opposite (?) feedbacks occur until a lower equilibrium is reach. Re: the second question, I both read and understood the Topic, my thinking was more about: (a) after the initial trigger why does the Antarctic temp continue to rise faster than the global average? Once the CO2 kicks in (well-mixed globally as you note) why the continued difference between hemispheres? and (b) the fact that there are (seemingly) a couple of separate warming events or stages - one at 18k yr ago and then another at about 13k yr ago (after a bit of a plateau. In both cases it looks like the Antarctic Temp increase precedes the CO2 increase. Are these actually separate events with separate triggers, or is it just a break in the forcing/feedback cycle, or just not significant given the data/time-scales? -
CBDunkerson at 22:31 PM on 5 September 2012CO2 lags temperature
opd68, you say you understand how warming can precede rising CO2 but also ask how cooling can precede falling CO2... the two are exactly the same. Atmospheric CO2 levels do not just magically rise and fall on their own... something has to cause them to do so. Temporal causality holds that this cause must precede the effect. Ergo, in the past CO2 levels have risen and fallen in response to orbital solar forcings as described in the article above. Your second question, about Antarctic temperatures, is also covered in the article; "The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic. This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect." All this per Shakun et al 2012, which is obviously a very new study and requiring further confirmation. However, there is nothing surprising about some parts of the planet warming faster than others. The solar forcings of the Milankovitch cycles impact specific hemispheres and only have a net effect because of the differing amounts of land in the two hemispheres. CO2, on the other hand, is well mixed throughout the atmosphere and thus impacts the entire planet 'global mean temperature' (presumably your 'GMT'). -
opd68 at 21:48 PM on 5 September 2012CO2 lags temperature
Likely these queries have been asked before, however I can't find a description. My apologies if it's a repeat. (1) re: Figure 1 of the Topic post - what is the current thinking on the mechanism for cooling which seems to precede CO2 decreases? (2) re: Figure 2 - I understand the trigger for warming being able to precede CO2 increase and then the feedback, but why does the Antarctic temp continue to (seemingly) precede CO2 increases even though the GMT lags it? To perhaps save time, I am a skeptic and still officially uncertain on the big picture. But consider myself a true one (i.e. inquiring, open mind rather than with preconceived ideas either way). -
John Russell at 21:28 PM on 5 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
@CBD You're completely right. But... Mine was a simple exercise. I took a tractor as it is today and worked out the weight of batteries required to give and it the same functionality and performance as diesel power provides. Are you aware that when, for instance, ploughing, a tractor has to be refuelled several times a day; and, when harvesting or silaging, a break for a recharge is not an option? I agree that sophisticated technologies might overcome these objections but given the slow uptake of GPS technology for automated field operations it's going to be a slow change. And I come back to my last point. The move from cheap fossil fuels is going to push the cost of food much higher. -
Bostjan Kovacec at 21:18 PM on 5 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
It's funny, we're all looking for some SF techno fixes when there are so many carbon neutral technologies available. People used to plow and harvest with horses, cows and buffalos, in fact, in some parts of the world they still do. No batteries, no wars for resources... Just common sense! -
CBDunkerson at 21:01 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
sailrick, that is one of several factors which have been proposed as contributing to the accelerated ice loss; 1: Warmer water rising to the surface and causing more 'bottom melt' 2: Warmer water making its way in from the Atlantic and Pacific and causing more 'bottom melt' 3: Increased export of ice out of the Arctic due to greater breakup and stronger currents 4: Increased melt due to 'physical processes' such as waves and storms increasing as the ice cover retreats 5: Black carbon pollution settling on the ice and increasing absorption of sunlight 6: Changes in precipitation resulting in less white snow and thus more solar absorption 7: Possible errors in basic melt calculations such as underestimating the amount of sunlight absorbed by ocean water through thin ice. Et cetera. My money is on increased bottom melt and physical breakup being the most significant factors, but the way it is going the ice will be gone before they can gather enough data to get a definitive answer. -
CBDunkerson at 20:49 PM on 5 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
John Russell, you're making an absolute statement after considering only one variable. What kind of charge duration did you assume? From the answer you came up with it seems like you assumed that this hypothetical electric tractor would need sufficient battery capacity to run as long as it could with a full tank of diesel. Yet those aren't guaranteed requirements. Consider advances in self-driving cars and then apply the concept to tractors. The only thing self-driving cars have not mastered is every possible unpredictable thing human drivers could do... a non-issue for a tractor in a field. Thus, there is no reason that an automated tractor could not be built with current technology. Which means it could run 24 hours a day. Which means it could have a smaller battery and stop to recharge as needed. OR advances in microwave power transmission or inductive charging could be applied and you could have a tractor that is continually charged with only an insignificantly tiny battery. OR ongoing advances in battery technology that significantly reduce cost and weight could be applied. Then there are other aspects of food price to consider. One of the major components is transport costs. Those go down when the transportation runs on electricity rather than gasoline... especially if some of the other technologies above are applied as well. If we get to self-driving electric trucks then nationwide shipping costs drop to a tiny fraction of current prices. So no, it isn't viable to say "Anyway you look at it". There are factors in play which could make 'electric farming' less expensive than current... and certainly less expensive than 'diesel farming' will eventually be as the price of oil continues to increase. All that said, there is also no reason farming couldn't continue using fossil fuels if mass transportation and power generation stopped doing so. If we only used fossil fuels for a few energy intensive industries like farming and air travel natural sinks would be able to absorb all of it AND some of the atmospheric excess each year. -
Kevin C at 19:01 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
NSIDC August average extent is out. I believe this to be a fairer comparison than the original. Click for full size version. Conclusions are unchanged.
-
John Russell at 18:41 PM on 5 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
@Estiben #58 writes... "Farm machinery doesn't have to be fossil fuel powered." As an exercise, a few years ago, I estimated what weight of batteries an electric tractor would need to have the same capability as one diesel-powered. Using the then latest Li-ions the answer was 6 tonnes. I'll leave you to work out the additional cost. Anyway you look at it, once farming moves away from fossil fuels, the cost of food produced will sky-rocket. -
geoffchambers at 18:22 PM on 5 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
sout #71 says: I don't know why you are going on and on about the conspiracy side of things. The first article annoncing this survey in the mainstream media was Adam Corner’s in the Guardian with the headline: “Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists?” More recently, Britain’s most popular serious paper, the Telegraph, covered the story in an article with the headline: “Climate change deniers 'are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists’”. Lewandowsky’s paper is headlined: “NASA faked the moon landing - Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax”. The survey is all about linking scepticism of climate science to belief in conspiracy theories. -
John Russell at 18:10 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
@catamon #21 Indirectly you raise a couple of interesting points. 1) Studying the time lapse images of the yearly Arctic ice melt it becomes clear that in all likelihood the last of the ice during the summer minimum will end up against the north Greenland coast -- perhaps because it's fed by the calving glaciers(?). And following on from that... 2) The next big summer melt landmark will be the moment that the North Pole becomes part of the area that is 'ice-free'. At that point (as others have pointed out) Father Christmas is homeless. This will be an important news item to prepare for. -
sailrick at 16:36 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
There is an abstract at AGW Observer today on the Arctic sea water temperatures. Deep Arctic Ocean warming during the last glacial cycle - Cronin et al. (2012) It starts out - Abstract: “In the Arctic Ocean, the cold and relatively fresh water beneath the sea ice is separated from the underlying warmer and saltier Atlantic Layer by a halocline. Ongoing sea ice loss and warming in the Arctic Ocean have demonstrated the instability of the halocline, with implications for further sea ice loss. ...." If I'm reading it right, it's saying their research indicates there is a layer of warmer water, below cold fresh surface water, that gets pushed down during a glacial period and rises during warming. After reading the SkSc article, I wondered if this might have something to do with climate models under estimating sea ice loss. ? -
opd68 at 16:24 PM on 5 September 2012Models are unreliable
Sphaerica, Whatever we use to illustrate and communicate our science must, in my opinion, be valid and justified. Otherwise we are simply gilding the lily. The fact that life and death decisions can be made with a paucity of information does not mean that we would be better off not doing so if we can. My opinion is simply that if we are using models to predict outcomes and inform our decisions then if we are confident in them and can demonstrate that to others: (1) we will more easily gain acceptance of the need for and impacts of our decisions, and (2) our decisions are more likely to be good ones. If the models can be so easily discarded, then we have spent a very long time and a lot of money & effort that could have been better employed elsewhere. If, however, they are a key element in improving our understanding and ability to communicate the problem then we can't afford to discount the need for them to be robust and demonstrably so. My point, which I'm still not sure was either wrong or silly, was simply that since we are using these tools I was interested in seeing how they were performing because that is how I increase my confidence in other peoples knowledge and build my own. Your point (1) in 'the bottom line' indicates to me that you think exactly the same way: a model of physics predicted the change and the observations supported those predictions - and you use this evidence to support your knowledge. -
Estiben at 16:17 PM on 5 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
John Russell @55 Farm machinery doesn't have to be fossil fuel powered. But, yes, leaving out machinery, it would be more efficient to grow on a small scale. That's great, if you live where you can grow everything you want, or are willing to settle for what you can grow. I guess I could live without coffee and mangoes. Transport will still be needed, however. I don't think all the people in Arizona or the sub-Sahara can grow their own food locally, at least not without importing a lot of water. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:49 PM on 5 September 2012Models are unreliable
563, opd68, Sorry, I've been too busy to follow the conversation and get caught up on everything that's been said, but this one comment struck me (and it's wrong):Once we start using that model to predict future impacts and advise policy then we must expect to be asked to demonstrate the predictive capability of that model, especially when the predicted impacts are so significant.
We're not entirely using models to predict and advise. It's one tool of many, and really, if we wanted to we could throw them out (at least, the complex GCMs, I mean -- after all, all human knowledge is in the form of models, so we can't really throw that out). The bottom line is: 1) The physics predicts the change, and predicted the change before it occurred, and observations support those predictions 2) Multiple, disparate lines of investigation (observations, paleoclimate, models, etc.) point to a climate sensitivity of between 2 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2. 3) None of this requires models -- yes, they add to the strength of the assessment in #2, but you could drop them and you'd still have the same answer. The models are an immensely valuable tool, but there is no reason to apply the exceptional caveat that they must be proven accurate to use them as a policy tool. Poppycock. Human decisions, life-and-death decisions, are made with far, far less knowledge (conduct of wars, economies, advances in technology, etc.). To say that we need even more certainty when dealing with what may turn out to be the most dangerous threat faced by man in the past 50,000 years is... silly. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:38 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
21, catamon, WTF moment? Don't bet on it. There will be: 1) Joy that we can finally drill and easily traverse the Arctic. 2) Certainty that this has all happened before, and it's part of a natural cycle. 3) Questions of how you can possibly think that the loss of Arctic ice is caused the the thoroughly discredited GHG Theory to begin with. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:36 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
17, Albatross, Personally, I don't think that distinction is going to matter for more than a few years. People can fight in that period over the distinction, but after that zero ice will be the new black. Then the game will switch to "how early" in the year zero is reached. And we get to see the answer to the really big question, which is "will there even be winter ice once the summer ice is seriously gone?" -
catamon at 14:09 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
Figure 2 in this is a pretty striking one. As far as "ice free" Arctic summer goes, i think the big media hit will come when we see something like figure 2 with just a small patch of ice, completely surrounded by open water at the pole. Has to be a WTF moment for "skeptics" when that happens surely?? -
R. Gates at 13:54 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
Albatross said: "Either Christy is ignorant of where the body scientific evidence and theory stands and that his opinions are by far associated a fringe element, or he accepts that and is guilty of engaging in highly misleading rhetoric and propaganda in public..." ____ There is another possibility. Christy is blinded by his own belief structure that tells him that Anthropogenic warming simply can't have such drastic effects as melting the Arctic decades before most climate models even said it would happen. In this case, Christy is guilty of the "confirmation bias" problem in that he only sees what he wants to see and interprets it based on his paradigm that AGW is small at best and will not have significant impacts... -
R. Gates at 13:49 PM on 5 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
This is an excellent article, and provides a comprehensive overview of the state of the Arctic from a long-term perspective. Takeaways from this: 1) Arctic is headed toward an ice-free condition in the next few years(possibly by 2020). 2) Human activity is the cause. 3) The deniers of #1 and #2 will stop at nothing to hold on to their illusion for as long as possible, and when the inevitable ice-free Arctic arrives, they'll say something like "so who cares...it doesn't affect me." or worse, "now we can get at the oil." For a nice summary of this summer's Arctic melt, take a look at this article, with links to other research that answers the question, "Why you should care...": [LINK]Moderator Response: [RH] Hot linked url -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 12:57 PM on 5 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
@geoffchambers - the study found that extreme right wing ideology was a strong predictor of rejection of climate science. The number of conspiracy theorists who responded was very low (unsurprisingly). Conspiracy theorists were separated from 'skeptics' in the analysis and the attempt to analyse them found not as high a correlation with science rejection as with 'skeptics' in any case. So I don't know why you are going on and on about the conspiracy side of things. As for 'skeptics' not seeing the survey. A 'skeptic' such as you've described would be bound to visit a broad range of websites and not huddle on 'skeptic' websites. Therefore the chances are that some of them would have seen and responded to the survey. As comments on mainstream climate science websites (such as this one) illustrate, even 'fake skeptics' visit here and elsewhere. This is borne out by the survey responses. The study findings should not be surprising to anyone, whether they are a fake skeptic or someone who seriously wants to know facts. The reaction baffles me. As anyone who visits climate science blogs and anti-science blogs knows, many 'skeptics' claim climate science is a left wing hoax. Yet there seem to be a lot of 'skeptics' who want to dispute the finding of this survey, that having a more conservative bias, particularly at the extreme end, is a predictor of rejection of science. The reaction of 'skeptics' seems to me to be contrariness taken to absurd lengths. -
opd68 at 12:52 PM on 5 September 2012Models are unreliable
JasonB - clearest response/conversation I have had on that ever. Thank you. scaddenp - what I am looking for is each 'against' argument dealt with rationally and thoughtfully, which is why I'm working through this as I am.
Prev 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 Next
