Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 Next
Comments 54901 to 54950:
-
Joel Upchurch at 10:52 AM on 2 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Tom Curtis @67. We are not ignoring the pipeline, but it is irrelevant to the question of how much warming we could expect between now and 2100. If we ask a weatherman how hot we expect it to be Wednesday, we don't have to expect the world to end Thursday to expect an answer. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] "We are not ignoring the pipeline, but it is irrelevant to the question of how much warming we could expect between now and 2100"
Completely incorrect, as has been pointed out to you. You are pointedly avoiding dealing with this; this reflects poorly on you.
Goalpost shift snipped.
-
chriskoz at 10:24 AM on 2 September 2012Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica
yocta, your link to Yurganov image is broken. I think you meant to show this link. It's hard to read that image, an eye-balling allows only a vague conclusion that CH4 increased from perhaps 1880 to 1900 ppb around arctic shallows from Nov2008 to Nov2011. Is this increase signifficant trend or just noise? I don't know. At the same time in Mauna Loa, the annual variations appear to be within 1770-1850 ppb. And from their picture within, the same anual cycle appear to apply in the arctic. I think Yurganov's signal is too insignifficant at this point. -
Mal Adapted at 08:59 AM on 2 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
It may be late in the discussion, but shouldn't someone call Dale's attention to the argument that AGW is a tragedy of the commons? -
JoeT at 08:57 AM on 2 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
Rob -- Thanks for the Seager reference. I had trouble getting the paper you linked to. However this worked for me. The paper is 2012, btw. I haven't got to the paper yet, but Seager looks like he would be an excellent source for understanding the physics of drought. He has an interesting website and wrt comments @3 and @5 about whether greenhouse gases would bring on El Nino or La Nina and how that would affect the US Southwest, he had this to say : Currently climate models are all over the map in how the tropical Pacific Ocean responds to rising greenhouse gases. The climate modeling group at Lamont has argued that rising greenhouse gases will warm the western tropical Pacific Ocean by more than the eastern ocean because, in the west, the increased downward infrared radiation has to be balanced by increased evaporative heat loss but in the east, where there is active upwelling of cold ocean waters from below, it is partially balanced by an increase in the divergence of heat by ocean currents. As such, the east to west temperature gradient increases and a La Niña-like response in induced. This is the same argument for why, during Medieval times, increased solar irradiance and reduced volcanism could have caused a La Niña-like SST response, as seen in coral based SST reconstructions. If the Medieval period is any guide as to how the tropical Pacific Ocean and the global atmosphere circulation respond to positive radiative forcing then an induced La Niña could regionally intensify the general projected subtropical drying and the American West could be in for a future in which the climate is more arid than at any time since the advent of European settlement. -
Eric (skeptic) at 08:27 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Tom, the best argument for the paper is that "skeptics" must be quoted as you did and we have yet to determine the definition. All in good time. -
Albatross at 08:15 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
So this is how the fake skeptics deal with cognitive dissonance. Said fake skeptics are doing a brilliant job if behaving just as predicted and demonstrating the very traits they are trying to rail against. That they are oblivious to that fact and keep scoring own goals by continuing to post is fascinating. This is yet another thread that could keep psychologists busy for a while ;) Moreover, the desperate attempts by conspiracy theorists to try and deny that they are conspiracy theorists by suggesting that a conspiracy is afoot would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic. Just a gentle reminder to everyone that the topic of this post is: "AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty", and not the Lewandowsky paper. That we have to have a special session at AGU with that title is so very unfortunate, but is demanded by the habit of fake skeptics to misinform and attack scientists as demonstrated by their behaviour on this very thread. -
Tom Curtis at 08:08 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
villabolo @25, My estimate up to about a month ago was 2030 +/- 5 years. Unsurprisingly, the current melt season is giving me reason to consider serious revision of that estimate. However, I think it inappropriate to significantly revise predictions based on just one melt season so no revision till at least this time next year. -
Tom Curtis at 08:04 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Eric (skeptic) @23, I can understand your not liking the paper, but I though you were better than to manufacture falsehoods about it. In fact Lewandowski is quite specific that the results only apply to "skeptics" who debate on blogs, rather than to all people who reject climate science:"One potential objection against our results might therefore cite the selected nature of our sample. We acknowledge that our sample is self-selected and that the results may therefore not generalize to the population at large. However, this has no bearing on the importance of Motivated rejection of science 13 our results|we designed the study to investigate what motivates the rejection of science in individuals who choose to get involved in the ongoing debate about one scienti c topic, climate change."
Nor is any attempt made to suggest that all "skeptics" are free market ideologues, or accept conspiracy theories other than those explicitly related to climate change:"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scienti c evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and in uential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we nd that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scienti c ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scienti c ndings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical con rmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists."
There is no broad brush approach. As I have previously noted, the title does not reflect the most important finding of the paper, and is offensive. There are also problems with the methodology, but those problems are very difficult to avoid at a reasonable cost (ie, at a cost within the budgets likely to be available to researchers), and are common to most research of this type. More importantly, the paper reveals nothing we did not already know. The activity of the free market is known to by highly rated by most blog "skeptics", and acceptance of conspiracy thinking has been directly observed in the very common charge that global warming is a conspiracy designed to bring about one world government - a theory endorsed by Monckton, which endorsement has had no appreciable impact on the willingness of other prominent "skeptics" to take him seriously. More recently, Monckton has publicly endorsed another conspiracy theory (birtherism) with no apparent loss of regard by other "skeptics". I cannot help but feel that the main reason "skeptics" are hot under the collar about this paper is not the title, but the fact that the very sober reports in the actual paper are a genuine reflection of reality - and they know it. -
villabolo at 07:28 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
Moderators, forgive me if this seems to be somewhat off topic. I'm curious to know when the commentators believe that the Arctic will be ice free during the summer; for about a week in duration; not counting a band of ice north of Canada and Greenland. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:59 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Tom, in a recent example, McIntyre criticized the Tobs portion of Watts' paper. I believe that Watts, Pielke or McIntyre should be critiqued in specific cases as has been done numerous times here. People can then make up their own minds on motives The Lewandowsky paper takes a broad brush approach and that is quite unscientific even without considering suspect methodologies. -
yocta at 06:55 AM on 2 September 2012Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica
It seems that the methane measurements are seem quite difficult to measure accurately over such a large region. I am particularly interested in the methane anomoly measurements in the region. I have found this image produced by Dr. Leonid Yurganov, Senior Research Scientist, JCET, UMBC. I would imagine with the even further retreat of the arctic ice that it is much worse now than when this image was compiled. This coupled with the graphs showing our Arctic's ice death spiral are powerful signs. I cannot see how with both of these the skeptic arguments could be used against arguing that the arctic melt is unprecedented. -
Lanfear at 06:44 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
Due to idle curiosity I started wondering whether there would be a possibility for the arctic ice to become 'dislodged', and if, then what would happen. So looking around I found this schema (from here) of the polar currents. My understanding based on this is that it is the transpolar drift that pushes the existing sea-ice against the coast of Greenland as well as the islands to the west and thus also push it southward for more rapid melting. So no spinning ice in the Beaufort gyre. Or have I missed something else? -
yocta at 06:41 AM on 2 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Personally, I don't feel that people properly understand that we are locked in, so to speak to at least a world with 2 degrees more warming, that even if action is taken today the graphs aren't going to change direction. I have tried searching the interwebs to see if any studies or surveys (such as this one by the George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication) but it is difficult to see what people's understanding or opinions are on the matter on this. I would be interested in the results of this question "If we were to stop emissions today do you think that future warming be avoided?" A further 2 degrees warming, for me is an extremely concerning scenario. Non science folk I have spoken to don't really understand that even if we could curb emissions we are on track to a vastly different climate that people alive today grew up with. -
Foxgoose at 06:33 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
That seems to raise a straightforward question of fact - did Skeptical Science post a link to Stephan Lewandowsky's survey during the stated fieldwork period prior to October 2010? Presumably, in the interests of openness transparency and credibility, John Cook can clear up this little point for us.Moderator Response: [DB] A straightforward statement of fact: in the interests of openness, transparency and credibility, John Cook already has, here. Presumably, you must have missed that little point. -
Tom Curtis at 06:26 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Eric (skeptic) @19, the fact something is trumping "analysis of the facts and science" in general within the "skeptic community" is easily demonstrated by such examples as Monckton and Anthony AHI* Watts. That the motive of the more rational "skeptics" is not scientific is demonstrated by the fact that the intellectual sins of their, frankly, absurd companions in arms is not considered reason to distance themselves from them. Clearly the merits of Anthony AHI Watts is judged by Pielke and McIntyre, not on the basis of the scientific virtues of his blog, but on the political impact of that blog. The question then, is not have the great majority of "skeptics" divorced themselves from the scientific tradition; but why have they done so? (* Antarctic Heat Island) -
geoffchambers at 05:45 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
You snipped this part, which doesn’t come from stolen intellctual property. “Lewandowsky claims in his paper that the fieldwork was completed by October 2010, and that Skeptical Science participated. Apparently one or other of these claims is mistaken”. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:25 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
From the Lewandowsky paper: "Rejection of climate science was strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez-faire view of unregulated free markets." The implied cause and effect is one of the numerous hazards of this type of research. There is a disagreement over the cost of externalities of fossil fuel use which is tied to disagreements over sensitivity, attribution, accounting for costs, and ignoring benefits. Certainly the skeptic community needs to be more responsive to the CO2 externality problem but that doesn't mean ulterior motives or preconceptions trump analysis of the facts and science. -
vrooomie at 05:02 AM on 2 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #33
John, apparently, there are native species in your home state...who knew? However, *not* saguaros! Cactus species native to Wisconsin I'm certainly amazed: we also have hardy prickly pear in Colorado, but in the south cholla and a few others are able to weather the climate. Species migration is one of those interesting things we're seeing wrt AGW, and is one of the more telling bits of evidence it *is* getting warmer. The biggest one of interest to me is the killing of most of our lodgepole pine, from the Japanese pine beetle, an invasive species which, 40+ years ago, wouldn't survive winter conditions in Colorado's mountains. For quite some time, it has, and its effect culminated in the fires you heard about this past summer, many of which are still burning. -
Daniel Bailey at 03:59 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
"The response in some quarters..."
Exemplifies nutjobbery in general and (-self snipped-) in specific. Durned Comments Policy prohibits most of what comes to mind to describe this. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:51 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
What an interesting conversation. There's a lot to learn here but it's not about the mechanics of a survey, more about what happens when uncomfortable information is delivered through research. The response in some quarters to Lewandowsky's paper seems an inadvertently authored metaphor for the larger problem of societal acceptance of climate change research, amusingly complete even in the detail of perusing purloined communications for hints of wrongdoing. Might be worth pausing to think about that. -
sol6966 at 03:13 AM on 2 September 2012Skeptical Science now a Nokia app
hi Clicked on the Nokia App link only to be greeted with a page saying "Sorry, this item is no longer available" Is the Nokia App unavailable temporarily? If not the link should be removed. -
chriskoz at 01:57 AM on 2 September 2012Potential methane reservoirs beneath Antarctica
I'm interested to know more about the relationship of Antarctic vs. Arctic clathrate reserves but I don't have access to the full article. The total amount of organic matter (10 times that of the arctic - 21 exagrams according to this study) does not mean much to the warming potential, IMO. What does matter, is the clathrates under AIS: in this study - 400 petagrams - the same as clathrates under arctic tundra. However, the total NH clathrates also comprise those under shalow depth of Arctic ocean, which is at least 1400 petagram by Shakhova et al. (2008), with bigger warming potential, especially considering Arctic acceleration with 2012 rapid ice melt. So far, I conclude, that this Antarctic study did not reveal anything more worrying that we already know: SH methane reservoir is smaller and melting slower than this on NH. -
John Hartz at 01:22 AM on 2 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #33
@vroomie #3: I was born in Wisconsin and spent most of my life residing in the Madison area. I traveled the state extensively. I do not recall ever seeing or hearing about cactii native to the state. There are lots of sand-bur weeds however. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:21 AM on 2 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
Discussions of climate sensitivity are best taken to one of the CS threads, such as this one. -
Bernard J. at 01:08 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
The Year Santa Drowned. I will wager my last hot dinner you just started--even before it's needed--a new GW meme.
A meme that's already in play, and I'm sure that I wasn't the first. It'll be interesting to see just how it's used for the first time in the mainstream media, once an ice-free summer Arctic is achieved... -
vrooomie at 00:53 AM on 2 September 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #33
Steve, you might have cactus in WI, but I'll go on record as saying you do *not* have Saguaro cacti, and as DB states, the cartoon, and perhaps your response, illuminates the cognitive bias and denial of the those who call a simple cartoon "silly." -
vrooomie at 00:47 AM on 2 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
curiousd@14, that is a topic about which Ph.D.'s have been attained; My take is this (and I only gots a BSc in geology), that people almost always, will deny the very *existence* of the tiger that has them by their own tail, until they see the gnashing teeth of that tiger arriving at their throat. NO one wants to admit they are the problem; said another way, only wet babies like change. Clearly the 'facts' of the case, asserted by something north of 97% of the scientific opinion that is relevant to this issue have made no difference to the Moncktons, the Lindzens, the Christys, the____________________(fill in the blank), and frankly, they are the ones who most loudly decry us earth scientists as the ones who're are on the 'gravy train.' Extant data, and the persistent yelling of those folks, belies that bit of evidence. So, the *only* answer I have for you is this: keep asserting scientific support of the problem, kepo debunking the deniers, again and again and (Mod, please pardon the caps) AGAIN, and maybe, just *maybe*, the tiger of cAGW will be short-circuited at our.....crumbs....before they arrive at our jugulars. For me the *single* most important resource I have to help me make the point to those who deny it all, and to which I read and study every day, is SkS. Sorry for the OT post, but thought I'd take a shot at addressing your question. -
Jeffrey Davis at 00:43 AM on 2 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
re: 14 Why would you prepare for the lowest possible danger? (And why you would believe it?) Responsible drivers buy more automobile insurance than the minimum required by law. We don't fund the army on the cheap. People opt for aggressive therapies to treat their cancers. Responsible people who are wealthy enough don't count on only their Social Security check, but save/invest more instead. And on and on. As for the minimum climate sensitivity, the 1.5C figure demands that there be NO feedback response. The 1.5C figure consists only of the amount of heating that a doubling of CO2 will produce. (And why assume we'd stop at 560ppm if we refuse to do anything now?) There's nothing magical about the energy produced by increasing GHGs. It's just energy, and there are always feedbacks. But we've had around 1C of warming already and we're at ~390ppm from a base of 280ppm. At 2ppm/year (the current rate), we'll hit 560ppm in around 80 years. Only .5C more warming over the next 80 years? Who could possibly believe that? -
vrooomie at 00:35 AM on 2 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
Glenn@6: The Year Santa Drowned. I will wager my last hot dinner you just started--even before it's needed--a new GW meme. Not sure whether to cry or to laugh.... For nigh on 10 years now, and given my increasingly cynical nature (and this, from a born, inveterate optimist!) I've been thinking that it *will* take a truly catastrophic event like the total melt-out of the Arctic to grab folks by their short-n-curlies, before anything really substantial gets done. I just hope that point-of-action isn't too late. "No matter how cynical you get, it's *impossible* to keep up." -Lily Tomlin, from "The Search For Signs Of Intelligent Life In The Universe. -
vrooomie at 00:27 AM on 2 September 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
DSL@24:......*ow*. But, you're right; this t(h)read is becoming kinda like a carcass....;) TC: I aims ta please! I'm a big believer in humor, both remaining in a tough topic, and being injected into ones that are bordering on war--not that this one was--but I am glad you got the joke! -
geoffchambers at 00:16 AM on 2 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
John Cook Are you sure the questionnaire you posted at SkS in 2011 is the one to the current Lewandowsky paper? Lewandowsky says the fieldwork was carried out between August and October 2010. The six sites where articles have been found all posted between the 28th and the 30th August 2010. There’s a similar questionnaire from UWA (though with different structure and different questions) being discussed at http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/07/29/climate-change-questionnaire-of-univ-of-western-australia/ and another one (or possibly the same one) was mentioned by junkscience. Clearly, several different surveys have been or are being conducted. (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] References to stolen intellectual property snipped. -
philipm at 23:40 PM on 1 September 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
It's interesting to line this development up against natural influences. While we are higher in the solar cycle than in 2007, the current solar cycle is still one of the lowest on record. 2007 was a cooling year in the ENSO cycle, whereas this year we're had a bit of El Niño phase of the cycle, but not a strong one. There isn't anything to suggest from this that any natural influence should be causing unusual warming. Next time the solar cycle goes back to its more usual maximum or next time we have a strong El Niño 1998-style, we could see a very rapid loss of sea ice extent. What we are seeing this time is most likely the effect of long-term loss of multi-season ice depth that doesn't in the short term decrease sea ice extent, but results in needing a year that's not exceptionally above the norm to drive back ice area a long way, once the multi-season ice has thinned enough. GISS shows northern hemisphere summer is one of the warmest on record, but not the warmest. -
curiousd at 22:04 PM on 1 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
Question: The"denial machine" now seems to be reduced to trying to prove the C.S. is small. I do not believe it is small, I think there is now good experimental evidence that the fast feedback CS is 3 deg C. BUT say the CS WAS at the lowest possible end, which we might take as 1.5 deg C. Why would this be an excuse for doing nothing about AGW? Does anyone have any crystal ball into denier logic that would help me out here? -
Rob Painting at 21:23 PM on 1 September 2012Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?
JoeT - Sorry, I don't know the details of how these two models differ. What I can tell you is that the 19 model ensemble used in Seager (2011), linked to above, did not find a change over the Sahel that was statistically significant. -
John Brookes at 18:35 PM on 1 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
Yes, no one really predicted it. Maybe we weren't being "alarmist" enough? -
Estiben at 18:33 PM on 1 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
garethman @42 It's great that you are taking these steps. Every little bit helps, but I'm sure you realize that not everyone can do the same. I suppose if everyone became a back-to-the-lander, our emissions would drop to near zero, but there isn't enough arable land to go around. Minifarms are not as efficient, for one thing, and then there is the problem of distribution. If everyone is a farmer, who is going to deliver food to where it can't be grown? Who is going to make new vaccines? I'm afraid we can't return to primitive agriculture without a massive loss of population. -
Estiben at 18:23 PM on 1 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Tom @39, I googled "Antarctic Heat Island" and nearly choked. You should post an absurdity factor warning. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:47 PM on 1 September 2012Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
shoyemore "Means the re-freezing will be almost as interesting as the melting." Never a truer word spoken. This years refreeze pattern is next years melt pattern. If refreeze starts later because the water is still warmer, their is less time for that ice to thicken over the winter and next year it melts out even quicker, more open water, more warming of the water more ... you get the idea. heijdensejan Yep, PIOMas really is following that exponential curve. However I think there will be some aspects of the Gompertz curve will happen as well. Exponential trend till it is 'virtually ice free' then leveling out like the gompertz curve before the last remnant goes. This isn't some weird math's. Its just that the last remnant is the ice along the north shore of Greenland & Ellesmere island. Weather patterns aren't usually conducive to that being cleared out easily and that is where the last remnant of the thicker ice remains. So it might hang around a bit. What is far more likely is that over the next 1-3 years the rest of the Arctic melts out substantially and earlier and that old ice is the last bastion. And importantly, that would include an ice-free North Pole. Not the final, truely ice free point. But perhaps a far more visceral 'tipping point'. The Year Santa Drowned. Although nobody wants the Arctic collapse to be happening, it might be our best hope in the short term to wake the world up. -
Troy_CA at 16:41 PM on 1 September 2012CO2 lags temperature
David (and others), for a specific response to Humlum et al., 2012, I put up a quick demo of why their method will create misleading results: https://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/comment-on-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature/ -
geoffchambers at 16:17 PM on 1 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
JohnHartz #8 Thank you. I have already done the search. It’s not there. Neither is it on the Wayback machine, who took snapshots of SkS every week during the relevant period. (-Snip-) Lewandowsky mentions SkS in his list of eight “pro-science” ( -Snip-) sites used, and when challenged, said that perhaps Cook had deleted the link. There is no suggestion of anything underhand here. The link from the participating blogs to the commercial organisation who set up the survey was deleted once the fieldwork period was over. My interest in finding the link here was in reading the comments of bloggers. It is puzzling that Sceptical Science did NOT take part, given the great interest that Cook shows in Lewandowsky’s work. (-Snip-) ( -Snip-) (-Snip-) So it seems that Lewandowsky was mistaken when he said that SkS took part in the survey, and we’re left with the puzzle of how he obtained 1100+ responses from just six (possibly seven) blogs, given the sparse and largely negative comments from the couple of dozen bloggers who discussed the survey on the blogs concerned. ( -Snip- ).Response:[John Cook] Skeptical Science did link to the Lewandowsky survey back in
20112010 but now when I search the archives for the link, it's no longer there so the link must've been taken down once the survey was over.[DB] References to stolen intellectual property, statements about religions & ideology and general off-topic hypothesizing snipped.
-
Kevin C at 16:11 PM on 1 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Joel@66: I think that shows that intuition is untrustworthy on this subject. Read Hansens' 2011 paper here, esp. figure 4a. Rypdal's method will allow you to deduce this figure for yourself. The temperature response to a given forcing history is the convolution of the derivative of this function with the forcing. You can see that about 40% of the response comes from forcing in the most recent 10 years, and 60% for earlier forcing. However, if the forcing is much more complicated than an impulse or a step, doing this calculation in your head is impractical. You actually have to do it before drawing conclusions on the results. -
scaddenp at 15:58 PM on 1 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Joel, 628ppm would be more like B1 scenario depending on what else was going on. IPCC prediction would be 1.1 -2.9 so I suppose they are luke-warmers too. I normally think of luke-warmers as those how somehow believe that climate sensitivity is less than 2. -
davidsanger at 15:52 PM on 1 September 2012CO2 lags temperature
thanks @Rob, clearly explained and the papers were helpful. -
Tom Curtis at 12:55 PM on 1 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
One further comment. Geoff Chamber's wrote at Bishop Hill:" Cook is quite clear in private correspondence that Lewandowsky’s denier / conspiracy theorist survey was something separate from the schemes he was cooking up with Lew. One possibility is that he contacted the commenters directly by email. This would be better survey practice, since it prevents commenters from exchanging views, as happened at Tamino’s, and also would avoid any possible bad publicity. Would it be considered unethical?"
Clearly his questions have been answered already. Skeptical Science and John Cook are not associated with Lewandowski's study. Curiously, Geoff Chambers followed that comment by espousing his own, bizarre conspiracy theory. Given that he thinks the "... whole survey is a fuss about nothing ...", I have to wonder why he is making a fuss. -
Tom Curtis at 12:48 PM on 1 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Further to my comment @12, and following up on John Hartz @13, I had a look at Lewandowski's data. Of interest to me is that 43 out of the 64 people who most strongly disagreed with global warming, as measured by their disagreement with the claim that:"I believe that the burning of fossil fuels on the scale observed over the last 50 years has increased atmospheric temperature to an appreciable degree."
also strongly agreed with the claim that:"The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research."
That is, 67% of the hard core "skeptics" surveyed are conspiracy theorists in the strict sense; even if their conspiracy theories are restricted to global warming. As it happens, however, 37 of those 64 had conspiracy theory ideation above average. That is, 50% of hardcore "skeptics" surveyed give significant credence to at least one, or some credence to at least 6 bona fide conspiracy theories other than those associated with climate change. Scary. -
Bernard J. at 12:35 PM on 1 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Joel Upchurch at #65:Bernard J. @60 All you seem to have done is graph the IPCC A1F1 scenario. I don't know you seem to think that corresponds to any definition to the word proof.
Really - "seem to have done"?! If you have a mathematical background you should be able to muck around and actually deduce how I arrived at the trajectory, or at least come to a pretty close approximation. I even gave you some clues. And note, I haven't at any time used the term "proof". What I did say is that:...I constructed the curve...
and that:...I used the entire Mauna Loa dataset available at the time, and I used the data itself to determine the best projection, rather than directly assuming a linear, exponential, or other fit. I did this by using a process similar to that illustrated by Dana on this very thread, and by using the most parsimonious approach in that analysis to subsequently arrive at the 21st century extrapolation.
To simplify, as it seems to escape your mathematically-trained attention, I used the entire Mauna Loa dataset, and the trend inherent in the data themselves, to arrive at the graph I displayed. And if that closely resembles the IPCC's A1F1 scenario, well, that probably reflects the underlying supposition of my analysis of a business-as-usual trend based solely on the pattern inherent in the Mauna Loa data. Call me cynical, but given your responses to me and to others here I can't help but question your argumentum ad auditorem claim to have a degree in mathematics. Are you sure that you didn't just take it as a first year subject (if that), and that you're inflating your experience in an attempt to redirect the thread?Moderator Response: [d_b] Easy there, please; no sense in being lured away from the subject at hand by irrelevancies. -
skywatcher at 11:47 AM on 1 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Composer99, nicely put. Saves me one debunking task. Joel, in #23, you asserted it was not plausible for emissions to increase at a sufficient rate to support large temperature rises. You ignored (and continue to ignore) such crucial issues as time delay to equilibrium, feedbacks, and economic/population issues that will lead to continued acceleration of both CO2 emissions and resultant warming at BAU. But in #28 you supported your assertion in #23 with the following statement:There is nothing in the actual C02 data that supports an increase to 792PPM of CO2 by 2100.
Quite apart from the other evidence presented showing that this is patently absurd, I presented evidence that the IPCC have emissions scenarios that consider this entirely plausible, with A1FI and A2 passing 800ppm by 2100. In #62, you try and divert from accepting that you were wrong in your earlier statements by suggesting that the IPCC think 628ppm is plausible [of course they do]. Which was not the question. Let's not chase blimps here. Do you accept that the evidence presented shows that it is plausible for emissions to pass 800ppm by 2100? Or do you want to continue using your extensive mathematical skills to put naive linear trends through 30 years of data, and continue to ignore all other physical factors? -
Tom Curtis at 10:59 AM on 1 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
geoffchambers @6, a quick google search of SkS shows no hits for "Lewandowski" plus "survey". Beyond that, any questions you have should be directed to John Cook. For those who are interested, Lewandowki's paper is available online here. I note that, having read the methodology, the claims being made about it by various deniers are entirely unwarranted. It might justly be claimed that the paper has not sampled "skeptics" in general, or "skeptics who comment on the internet", but only "skeptics who comment on science based blogs" which may not be a representative sample. It may also be suspected that the number of "skeptics" participating may be to small to draw any significant conclusions. It is not clear to me where Lewandowski reports the proportion of respondents with low scores on the Climate Science part of the survey. More importantly, in my opinion, the title of the paper is not justified by the results, and is needlessly sensationalizing and offensive. Lewandowski found a -.866 correlation between free market ideology and acceptance of climate science, but only a negative 0.197 correlation between acceptance of conspiracy theories and acceptance of climate science. Clearly the link to free market ideology is the big result, and the limited link to conspiracy theory ideation should only be a footnote in this study. Having said that, the link between a significant group of "skeptics" and conspiracy theorizing is easily established by their own words, with suggestions that climate scientist fake data either to advance the cause of one world government, or to undermine the US economy, or simply to defraud tax payers all being common and all being, in the strictest sense, conspiracy theories. Of course, this only has bearing on those "skeptics", such as Monckton, who advance such theories; and is in no way a reflection on the more rational "skeptics" such as Jeff ID and Lucia. -
John Hartz at 10:53 AM on 1 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
To put Geoff Chamber's posts in context, here's the text of the Aug 31 post on Bihop Hill titled,"Landowsky's Survey." "Geoff Chambers has obtained Stephan Lewandowsky's survey data which can be seen as an attachment at the bottom of this post. Of course it's anonymised, so we are not going to get to the bottom of the question of the number of sceptics he approached, but you may be interested." Geoff and his cohorts at Bishoip Hill seem to be intent on making a mountain out of a molehill. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:47 AM on 1 September 2012Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
Tom Curtis posted this at 9:50 am and it was unfortunatley accidentally deleted. I reproduce the text here:Joel Upchurch, I just did a few calculations based on your comment @28. Based on your projected temperature increases, I calculated that your estimate for CO2 concentration in 2100 is 490-620 ppmv. That later requires an average 2.56 ppmv CO2 groath over the remaining years of the 21st century, ie, a marginal increase over current levels. The former requires annual CO2 growth approx half that of current values for the rest of the 21st century. The median value requires no growth in emissions over current values for the remainder of the century. Your assumptions are simply absurd as a BAU model. More troubling, if you calculate the increase in temperature from the pre-industrial average using your your concentration estimates, we find an increase of 2.4 C over the preindustrial average for the lower estimate, and 3.4 C for the upper estimate. That represents a 1.7 to 2.7 C increase over current values. You only obtained lower values by ignoring the warming currently in the pipeline. (Note: The difference between my estimate and scaddenp's estimate at 58 is that I used a climate sensitivity of 3, while he used 2.8) Most importantly, the median value of 2.9 C is well above the 2 degree above pre-industrial average guardrail for "safe" global warming. Even your dubious luke warm values are way to hot.
Prev 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 Next
