Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 Next
Comments 61201 to 61250:
-
dana1981 at 02:39 AM on 18 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
John Russel - to be honest, I'm not terribly concerned about how the denialists will misrepresent what we say. That's just what they do. However, for the most part, they're just talking amongst themselves. Nobody in the mainstream media is going to say "did you hear that a climate blogger's prediction about a record temperature in 2013 was wrong?", and nobody is going to pay attention if a climate denialist blog says so. -
Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Excellent piece, Glenn! If reasonably open-minded people with some science background read this, it’s hard to understand why they should not be convinced the Earth is still warming, and that an increased greenhouse effect is the only possible explanation. Maybe I will translate it to Norwegian, but in order to make it more interesting for Norwegian readers, I would like to add a paragraph about how fast the increasing heat content could boil away lake Mjøsa, the largest lake in Norway. The volume of lake Mjøsa is about 56 cubic kilometres, and its average temperature is close to 5°C. On that background I would be grateful if someone could confirm that the following calculations are accurate: The heat capacity for water is 4.2 J/g/K, so it should take 4.2 x 95 = 399 joules to heat each gram of water in Mjøsa from 5°C to 100°C. According to Wikipedia, the water’s heat of vaporization is 2257 joules per gram at the boiling point, so it should take 399 + 2257 = 2656 joules to heat each gram of Mjøsa to 100°C and then boil it away. The total amount of water in lake Mjøsa is 56 km3 x 1 billion x 1 million = 5.6 x 10^16 cm3 or grams. Boiling all this water away once should therefore take 2656 x 5.6 x 10^16 = 1.49 x 10^20 joules. If the total heat content change the last 50 years is 2.1 x 10^23 joules, this is enough to boil away lake Mjøsa 2.1 x 10^23 / 1.49 x 10^20 = 1409 times. And if the present energy imbalance is 0.58 w/m² or 2.96 x 10^14 watts globally (twice the average for the last 50 years), this should be able to boil away lake Mjøsa in a little less than 6 days! Is this calculation more or less correct, or have I missed something here? -
Jose_X at 02:16 AM on 18 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
owl905 #25. Huge oceans slow down a rise in temperature but later slow down a fall. Also, the inertia of the oceans might possibly mean we overshoot the equilibrium value by a larger amount (if not, we simply exponentially decay towards it) since everything we gain today we pay for tomorrow. Deep oceans vs shallow oceans may not change the equilibrium value by much (if by anything), and it will mean "momentum" we have to stop tomorrow. Are we going to leverage the extra time the oceans are giving us today or are we going to let a much larger avalanche accumulate for our descendants? I foresee a future where we find many ways to control the climate temperature. This is a great time (say the next 5 decades) to figure out how to cheaply lower the GHE since it is easier to work at this solution under current temperatures than under the hotter ones of tomorrow. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:56 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
81, Eric (skeptic), First, I don't want to derail from our train of thought, but as far as solutions go... once the CO2 genie is out of the bottle... you need to realize that it was very easy to extract 337 gigatons and counting of carbon in liquid form from the ground, burn it, and release it into the atmosphere as a widely scattered gas. See this past comment of mine on the numbers to see exactly how gigantic that problem is now (let alone after we reach 560ppm). Also note that your hopes for technological progress are in fact very dependent on maintaining the robust nature of our civilization. If climate and resource pressures grow too great, if some countries see their infrastructure collapsing while others invest their energies in other directions (defense in an increasingly unstable world, the need to maintain dwindling food supplies, the need to find new energy sources), then the resources available to dedicate to the difficulty of correcting the problem will be less. We might have been able to do so, if everything stayed the same, but will we be able to when civilization is under severe pressure exactly caused by our lack of solutions today? But that's a digression... more to the point: You accept certain guesstimated probabilities for higher levels of sensitivity. We have as yet not quantified the chances of future technological miracles which allow us to ignore the simple, available solutions we have at present. We will get to this eventually. But, given possible climate sensitivities of 2˚C, 2.5˚C or 3˚C or more, and recognizing that at least some of the extreme fire, drought, flood and temperature events that we see today are almost certainly connected to the meager global temperature change that we have achieved to date (which, because of lag time, is far less than the change to which we are already committed, even if we were to stop all emissions completely today), and that those events point to the expense and hardship their continued and increasing existence would pose... Can you put a number (in lives, dollars, whatever) to what you think the impact of a 2˚C, 2.5˚C or 3˚C or more climate change will be on the citizens of your own country, and on various people around the world in general? Can you in any way (just for the purposes of ball-park decision making) quantify the danger that a higher climate sensitivity implies? -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:47 AM on 18 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Sphaerica, yes I assumed doubling to 560ppm. I think all three of your statements are very likely to be true based on various possible positive feedbacks. I also think there are chances of technological progress in 50-100 years to offset those possibilities, see my post on this thread It could also be that we get larger positive feedback and fail to attain sufficient technological progress, but I think that is a very small probability because progress in science and technology is not contingent on political will or economic incentives (although they both help). -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:44 AM on 18 March 2012It's too hard
There are no silver bullets, there is no one solution that will mitigate all CO2 and/or heat effects but there are several solutions for 1/4 to 1/3 of the problem like soil sequestration, CCS, carbon tax and rebate, alternatives, and yet-to-be-designed ways to pump heat to the upper atmosphere (I'm an engineer so that's generally how I would approach it). Some of these policies imply a need for cap and trade, but that may be mitigated by the fact that we subsidize traditional farming already and would change that to techniques like this: http://epsc413.wustl.edu/Lal2004_Geoderma.pdf -
Doc Snow at 23:28 PM on 17 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Nice link, perseus. Thanks! -
Sceptical Wombat at 22:59 PM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
YubeDude Most of the things I that I would take a denialist approach to are in fact straw men created by the fake sceptics to try to justify their use of the term "alarmist" - though some of Hansen's descriptions of worst case scenarios (for instance complete evaporation of the oceans) fall into that category. Hansen of course makes it clear that these are worst case, would take multiple centuries and are not likely - but the fake skeptics tend to ignore that. I also think that some news outlets have a tendency to automatically associate any problem of inundation from the sea with sea level rise and global warming. A recent example would be the ABC's treatment of problems in the Torres Straight. Now I will accept that, in a business as usual scenario, future sea level rises are likely to cause major problems with huge economic costs - but I very much doubt that anything significant has already happened. The other thing I absolutely do not believe is that transitioning to a carbon neutral energy regime would wreak havoc with the worlds economies. The people who claim that it would are in my opinion the real alarmists. As far as I know there is nothing in the FAR that would put me in the denialist camp - with the obvious exception of the Himalayan mistake. The point I was trying to make was there is nothing particularly wrong with Singer's classification - its just that he has drawn the boundaries in the wrong places. -
MA Rodger at 21:39 PM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Glenn Tamblyn @38 A long shot, but neuro-scientist Talia Sharot had a book out last year that got her into New Scientist. Coincidentally, she appeared on BBC 2's Horizon last Tuesday. This i-player link sadly does not work worldwide (perhaps even extra-UK). Sharot was featured in the programme (about 20 mins in) quizing folk while watching their brains to find out why their responses were so stupid. To make this comment more meaningful for those unable to access BBC i-player, it goes something like this:- Subjects were asked 80 questions (this is a test from psychology) about chances of them in future suffering something bad, a broken bone, cancer etc. After answering, they were given an answer based on real-life data which is acceptably a more accurate figure. Afterwards they were asked the same 80 questions again. Where they had over-estimated the bad outcome first-time-round, the happier 'accurate' data-based figure tended to be their answer second time round. But where their 'less accurate' initial response gave the happier answer, the second response tended to ignore the 'accurate' data-based but unhappy answer. Sharot's work shows the bit of brain that deals with negativity doesn't work so well in humans. Humans have a built-in optimistic "yeeehaaaa" bias. -
perseus at 20:38 PM on 17 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Yes, Wells is not a well known as the other climate pioneers, perhaps this is due to his work being more applicable to weather, although the two disciplines clerly overlap. Here is an alternative timeline For later developments, Guy Stewart Callendar predicted in 1938 an that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning would lead to a global increase of 2°C, with the poles warming more.Response: [JC] I converted your URL to a link as the full URL was widening the website design. -
John Russell at 20:05 PM on 17 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
@Tom #51 While I agree with what you say in general, we both know that however many sensible caveats are included, those in denial will completely ignore them when they loudly trumpet the fact that you were wrong. And that's the point, the negative impacts of being wrong completely outweigh any positive effects of being right. I worry that it plays into the hands of those who make mischief. I should say that I think my hang-up is purely regarding the use of the word 'prediction'. Perhaps if it was expressed differently I'd not feel so uneasy. -
adelady at 19:29 PM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
"Its basic psychology that although most of us learn our arithmatic at school, we don't treat it as a toolbax for looking at all facets of life. ... doubly so when we then need to deal with number of a size that are outside our experience." School arithmetic! I find tutoring primary aged children who are 'worst' at simple calculation are the ones who have the most trouble when asked to "see" numbers in the world around them. Car wheels, bird wings, fingers & toes. I'm pretty certain that the older ones who come to me for algebra, totally unable to write exponents, let alone understand them, would have been unable to name 2 as the relevant number for bicycle wheels a few years earlier. As for counting zeroes .... (but even the best of us can have trouble, sometimes.) -
ubrew12 at 18:06 PM on 17 March 2012Changing Climates, Changing Minds: The Personal
Loved this article. My own conversion was much more prosaic. An engineer specializing in 'thermal fluids', I got accepted into a PhD program in Atmospheric Science, studying mesoscale meteorology. The guy who taught me basic Atmospheric Physics was the resident climatologist, who was studying the 'Urban Heat Island Effect'. Mind you: this was in 1980. Ever since, it has amused and astonished me to watch the skeptics trump the 'Urban Heat Island Effect' as something they discovered sometime in the '90s. But, honestly, I left Atmospheric Science, when the climatologist asked us to calculate and describe the atmosphere in Arthur C Clarkes spaceship 'Rama'. This did two 'damaging' things: It reignited a teenager-love of all things 'classic science fiction'. And it re-affirmed what, as an engineer, was bugging me about the atmosphere: the old complaint that 'everyone complains about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it'. Its not a system you can change, like a good engineer would want to. (How wrong I was!) I've been designing satellites since then. The issue of how a satellite, like Earth, finds its internal temperature has been my bread-n-butter for 25 years now. I cannot BELIEVE how embracing of idiocy my fellow Americans have been on this subject. We need to build 'Rama' just so I can escape to it... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 16:02 PM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
A small correction. I gave a figure for the worlds oceans as being around 2,300,000 times the size of Sydney harbour. Actually the figure is more like 2,300,000,000 times larger (2,313,167,259 times actually). I screwed up when combining one figure in cubic metres and another in cubic kilometers. Note to self, turn thousands separators on in Calculator, helps with magnitude checks. Thanks to nuclear_is_good for the spot. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:49 PM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
zinfan94 @35 I agree. Way to much out-of-sight, out of mind stuff. I have just seen 'John Carter' at the movies so it set me thinking. Imagine a nearly desert planet, no oceans. Then add the extra CO2 we have done. There would be no question that we were warming the planet - it would be far more visible and obvious. Our Blue-Green planet may be wonderful but it poses the most sever cognitive challenge to us. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:42 PM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
doug_bostrom Agreed. Being able to assimilate quantitative information as a routine part of daily life is a relatively rare trait in people. Its basic psychology that although most of us learn our arithmatic at school, we don't treat it as a toolbax for looking at all facets of life. We tend to compartmentalise quantitative thinking as to be used for 'numbers stuff', not for all of life. And it certainly isn't most peoples default mental mode. So doubly so when we then need to deal with number of a size that are outside our experience. Most people probably then fall back on using more qualitative reasoning processes instead rather than trying to engage with the quantitative. This was encapsulated wonderfully in an interview I read years ago in New Scientist with a Professor of Psychology - I wish I could find the article now or remember her name. However, she used the expression 'Insensitivity to Magnitude' to describe much of our mental processes. For most of us most of the time, qualitative style thinking processes are the norm and we have to stretch a bit to apply quantitative reasoning. This is not a criticism of people, just an observation of the nature of human psychology. But in rare situations such as AGW, where we need most people to 'buy in' to understanding it, this aspect of human nature has a serious cost. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:30 PM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Seeking Answers The difference is in the type/altitude of the clouds. Low level clouds are dense so reflect sunlight back to space, thus having a cooling effect. In contrast their contribution to the GH effect is small because, being closer to the ground they are at a temperature closer to the surface temperature. So when they absorb IR radiation then reradiate it, they are doing it at a temperature close to surface temperature. High clouds in contrast tend to be much thinner. So they are poorer reflectors of sunlight. But they are still dense enough to absorb IR. And being higher and colder, when they re-radiate that IR it is at a loer total energy because of their lower temperature. Thus they restrict energy flow to space and contribute to the GH effect All told, clouds (and the atmosphere itself) reflect around 23% of incoming solar radiation. And low level clouds contribute about 25% to the Greenhouse Effect. So it is the relative change in the two different types that would have an impact. Roughly equal increases or decreases of both types would tend to cancel out. -
YubeDude at 15:12 PM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Sceptical Wombat I am curious as to what your perception of the message is. Setting aside the science for now, how would you characterize the tone of the message that is AGW? What aspects of the skeptical position do you find convincing? For either side, are there rhetorical attitudes on display that you find ineffective? What are your sticking points that keep you, "in fact" a denialist? I am looking at how the issue can be reworked to increase public acceptance and filter out that which only serves to distract. Your thoughts would be helpful. Thank You. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:24 PM on 17 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
79, Eric, From the other thread, you are assuming at least a doubling of CO2 as a certainty, correct? So the question is narrowed to one of sensitivity per doubling, and the danger presented by that sensitivity. I understand your reluctance to offer a probability, due to the complexity of the issue, but you should be able to recognize a few things. Please tell me which of these statements you agree to: 1) Sensitivity is likely, in the best case, to be no less than 2˚C per doubling. 2) A chance of a sensitivity of 2.5˚C per doubling must be considered to be at least 30%. 3) A chance of a sensitivity of 3˚C per doubling or higher must be considered to be at least 10%. Do you accept any or all of these statements as very likely to be true? -
Bob Lacatena at 14:19 PM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
40, Eric, I'll reply on the sensitivity thread. -
Sceptical Wombat at 14:13 PM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Actually I agree with Singer. There are denialists, there are sceptics and there are alarmists. I am a sceptic in fact a bit of a denialist. The human race will not go extinct - though a lot of other species may, the Greenland ice sheet will not collapse this century - though I am not so sure about the parts of Antarctica. Nor will civilisation as we know it be destroyed by moving to a carbon free economy. I do however accept that greenhouse effect is real, that a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor than a cooler one, that there is no gaia mechanism that will ensure that clouds will conveniently save us from ourselves, that it is extremely difficult to see how clouds can be both a forcing mechanism and a negative feedback. I am truly sceptical about some other things. That means I am not convinced but am certainly prepared to believe they are possible and prepared to become convinced if I get more information. These include for instance the prospect of minimum arctic sea ice reaching zero this decade. -
Tom Curtis at 13:25 PM on 17 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
John Russel @50, I disagree. We either accept our theory or we do not. If we accept it, then we should be confident in predictions made on that basis, and if they fail we should modify our theory accordingly. So while I also had some trepidition on the PR aspects of public predictions, the fundamental issue of scientific integrity overrides them. Having said that, the theory being tested by these predictions is not AGW per se, which is insufficiently precise over the short term for such predictions, but the Foster/Rahmstorf model on which the predictions are based. Further, the predictions are premised on certain expected changes of the forcings, and should the changes be significantly different, the prediction becomes void. These are important caveats which are important in understanding the science, but which are likely to be ignored by fake skeptics. The proper response, therefore, is to be clear about those caveats when discussing the prediction, both in prospect and in retrospect. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:57 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Sphaerica, I posted on sensitivity here. The chances of civilization stopping at 450 are very low, maybe 10% because we will reach that in about 30 years or less. The chances of stopping at 560 are much better considering that gives us until 2100 if we stay at 2ppm per year. I assume we will have technology and plenty of non-fossil energy by then and substantial means to mitigate past emissions. My concerns come mainly from the uncertainties in the sensitivity I talked about in the other thread. If all uncertainties go in the wrong direction we will have 3 or 4C. I am sure there are better threads where I could talk about what to do if that happens. -
tmac57 at 11:54 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
John Russell #36- I heartily agree with your last sentence,and I hope that isn't just my own confirmation bias talking. SkS really does a wonderful job keeping the discussion on an intellectually honest level that is worth emulating,and sadly, rare on the internet. I suspect that many 'climate skeptics' would see that kind of diversity of thought as 'breaking ranks',and 'heretical'. -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:48 AM on 17 March 2012A detailed look at climate sensitivity
Re: sensitivity, assuming our peak CO2 is 560 ppm. I cannot develop a probability distribution based on evidence because there is no evidence to support one, i.e. there is no evidence for any particular distribution such as a normal distribution and uncertainties about feedback are discrete, not based on some continuous function. Running any particular model or set of models multiple times produces a distribution WRT those models not WRT reality. I would probably just choose one method and one number although I would prefer using two: modern temperatures and LGM with paleo data as it becomes available. (I rule out using glacial to interglacial for reasons I discussed here Using the modern temperature rise I would take the 4/10 of a doubling in CO2 that we have had so far, the 0.7 rise of temperature (assume 1/2 the pre-1940 was natural) then 0.7/0.4 is about 2 C. Uncertainties include GHG feedbacks from warming (tends to be longer run), weather feedback (could be + or -) and exogenous factors that could go either way. For example an active sun would likely produce a greater multiplier of CO2 warming than a quiet sun. We can't really predict the sun past a decade or two. -
From Peru at 11:47 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Nota bene: The WWF ad comparing the 2004 Tsunami and the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks was on one side a great idea to show how big and deadly a disaster can be, but on the other was comparing apples with oranges because the Tsunami is natural disaster, while 9-11 was a man-made disaster.One is amoral, the other is outragingly immoral. Yes, a manmade disaster. Sounds familiar not? Isn't a suicide mission to make everything possible to prevent the disoriented captains(aka governments) of the hundreds of planes(aka countries) that will soon crash over all the cities of the planet from turning away and save themselves and the cities inhabitants? Murder is not just planned killing. Planned denial of a future disaster (blocking any action that can prevent it) is murder too. If that is allowed to happen, it will be teached in XXII Century history books as a far worse massacre than the worst episodes of the XX century. Fortunately that history is still not written, but time is running out... -
From Peru at 11:17 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
"If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we'll have to have a disaster" A sad, but painfully real truth. Something far worse than this will be needed:
Just replace "2004 tsunami" with "climate change" and "killed" with "killing".
It's sad, but maybe this must happen every day on every city of every major economic power for months before the public wake up and demands that decisive steps against pollution are taken.
However, at that point it could be too late.
-
Zen69 at 10:14 AM on 17 March 2012Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
Hope I've got the right thread here. I recently had an online discussion with a 'skeptic' in which he claimed that 'skeptics' only talk about sea ice extent because the measurements for volume are unreliable. I duly did my research and, as I expected, his criticisms were invalid. Measurements are taken by satellite, submarine, and by scientists on the ground,then extrapolated for the whole area of coverage. From what I read the results are reliable, in fact slightly overestimating the thickness of the ice. However, two days ago I read a newspaper article in which the chief scientist at the met office was quoted as saying that the thickness of arctic sea ice is not known with any confidence. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/14/met-office-arctic-sea-ice-loss-winter This has left me slightly baffled and perplexed. I just wondered if anyone would like to try and shine a light on this for me. Thanks.Response:[DB] This was discussed over at Neven's (starting here). See also Arctic Sea Ice Hockey Stick: Melt Unprecedented in Last 1,450 years, where you will find this graphic (extent being an approximation of relative volumes over time):
-
John Russell at 10:03 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
@Alexandre, I agree. It's very rare to see those in climate denial arguing, even when their views contradict one another. It seems that if you're on the denial 'side' of the argument -- however strange your belief or opinion -- then you're an ally. On the other hand -- as the comment threads of SkS attest -- the 'warmists' will often argue (in the nicest possible way) over details, and then further down the thread one or the other will be persuaded by an argument or suddenly come to a realisation. This is much more like the way science works as I understand it. -
John Russell at 09:33 AM on 17 March 2012Prediction: New Surface Temperature Record in 2013
As you know Dana, while I think predictions are fine as an exercise amongst friends, I don't advocate making predictions for the whole world to see. The personal satisfaction of getting one right is heavily outweighed by the hay that will be made by the denial lobby if -- for whatever understandable reason -- you get it wrong. I'm sure Malthus would agree with me. But best of luck! -
John Russell at 09:24 AM on 17 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
@Jsquared If you check on other topics I think you'll find that threads on SkS never die out! -
Dikran Marsupial at 08:18 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Alexandre Roy Spencer also regularly points out shortcomings in other skeptics arguments. It is indeed to their credit. -
Alexandre at 08:05 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
To Singer's credit, it's very very rare to see one 'skeptic' saying that some other 'skeptic' is wrong. Usually, you have the "it's the sun" guy totally happy to agree with the ODP guy, or with the "not warming" one. Not much of a credit, but hey, I'm making an effort here. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:45 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
29, Eric (skeptic), As Singer's article demonstrates, everything has been a focus of skeptics at one point or another. The basic strategy is throw it on the wall and point and shriek at whatever sticks (and sometimes often what doesn't). Now Singer wants to suddenly position himself as the "reasonable" one by saying that some of those things are silly, while others aren't (so he's not silly, no siree). I will agree that about four years ago climate sensitivity was the issue that deniers should have been discussing, instead of pretending that CO2 wasn't rising, wasn't anthropogenic, temperatures weren't rising, etc. But in the past years the evidence has mounted considerably. Times have changed. More studies have been done. One has to look through and past a lot of evidence to find a few details worth haggling about, and then focus on those details to the exclusion of the body of evidence. Even if you want to dig into it that far, and find some area of doubt, the weight of the evidence still says that a 3˚C outcome is at least possible if not likely or very likely, and even that is only if we stop at a mere doubling of CO2. I'd ask you now, just off the cuff, to give the percent chances that you personally believe for a climate sensitivity of 1˚C, 2˚C, 3˚C, 4˚C or higher per doubling of CO2. I'd ask you what the chances are of civilization achieving a level of 450 ppm, 500 ppm, 550 ppm, 600 ppm or more before getting the problem under control. Then I'd ask you to seriously look at your own opinion on the matter, based on your own current understanding and those numbers, and then ask why you are not much, much more concerned. -
Tristan at 07:13 AM on 17 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
If Genghis had to be put on the political spectrum of his day it'd surely be on the left. He instituted social reforms and practiced religious tolerance. Not a great neighbour however. -
dorlomin at 07:12 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Its partially reheated "luke warmism". The false balance "moderates". -
dana1981 at 07:01 AM on 17 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
JMurphy - I'll be doing a blog post on that Inhofe interview in the near future. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:00 AM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Excellent to see the scale of this problem brought down to something more of us may intuitively grasp; the result with Sydney Harbour is pleasingly accessible. We're wretched at dealing with large numbers; I've often thought that much of the communications problem with our gassy dilemma is down to our poor fitness for thinking about "billions." Ten fingers and a horizon a few miles away just doesn't equip us very well. -
garethman at 06:54 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
I rather like being described as a warmist, and being part of the warmistas. I like my warmy community. It sounds great to me, because it means so much more than just a belief in the science of climate change. I’m proud of my associations with protecting the environment and see no shame in having serious concerns with what we as a species are doing to our own home. But I’m not so stubborn as to believe there is a defining line between myself and skeptics or those who stick their heads in the sand. There is a continuum from one spectrum to another, we all sit on the spectrum, but hopefully more at the environmental end. Like our views on the nature of health, what we say and think about climate science often says more about ourselves than the subject itself.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text. -
chuckbot at 06:34 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
I couldn't help thinking of the classic article, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use," which took a similar path in that it rejects some of the wackier anti-evolutionary arguments while still maintaining the newer, sexier arguments (irreducible complexity, specified complex information...) http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use If I remember correctly, "Arguments..." actually caused a bit of a schism amongst creationist organizations. It will be interesting to see how Singer's article will play out. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:32 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Sphaerica and others: I added some questions to some old threads related to sensitivity. Not so much to get new answers because there were some pretty good ones already, but to point out that there is always work to be done defending claims about the applicability of paleo sensitivity estimates and sensitivity in general. I don't think it is really sufficient to attribute it to a new focus by skeptics, although that may be partly true. It is also true that it was a past focus by skeptics. -
JMurphy at 06:05 AM on 17 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Unfortunately, you can't have a rational debate with people who have already made their minds up because of their political/free-market viewpoint. This, recently, from Senator Inhofe shows what sort of people we are dealing with here : "I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost." That's right : he went along with AGW until he found out he didn't like what he believed it was going to cost ! Listening to the rest of that interview, Inhofe is living in a world of his own creation, constantly battling against those whom he calls "liberals", i.e. anyone to the left of Genghis Khan, it would seem. You can see what sort of rubbish he believes in when you look into the sources he brings out at the beginning - the "liberal" British Telegraph (actually columnist Christopher Booker in the famously right-wing Telegraph); the Financial Times (actually blogger Clive Crook in the Financial Times); and the UN and IPCC, or some blustering combination of the two, somehow (actually Hal Lewis's resignation letter from the APS, and Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng, MD - Industrial and Petrochemical Consultants). As for the Newsweek 'condemnation' and the study in the "liberal" Nature : Inhofe is seeing exactly what he wants to see, rather than what is actually there in real life. What a surprise... -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:59 AM on 17 March 2012Pielke Sr. and SkS Disagreements and Open Questions
Where is the forcing from dust in the diagram in this post? If the dust is feedback and not forcing, then how is the paleo-derived sensitivity applicable to today's transition from the present climate to the CO2 doubled climate? (since there is no dust involved now) -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:55 AM on 17 March 2012Weather vs Climate
Last October (sorry for the delay) Tom said: "changes to the position of the jet stream is a response to temperature changes, and hence part of the feedback system." The problem with that logic is that the changes to the position of the jet in response to temperature (more precisely other factors like the continental ice sheets which respond to temperature) when transitioning between glacial and interglacial are completely different from the changes to the jet when transitioning from the present climate to the CO2-doubled climate. There is no way to apply the sensitivity derived from the paleo weather changes to today's weather changes. -
owl905 at 05:29 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
@Lars Karlsson 11 - Thx for the suggestion to read the article's Comment Section. Laughed to the point of tears ... for example: "How can you be sure that it's not just steaming unicorn poop?" Indeed. @dana1981 - Why would you possibly want to do a rebuttal? When combined with the Comments, it stands on its own as a Far Side candidate. Ol' Fred seems to have succumbed to a temporary bout of bucket-list sanity. And the inmates didn't appreciate it. Here's a decent follow-up - hold a contest to see who can find all the real science in the Comments section - no cheating, you have to look. -
John Mason at 03:58 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Yubedube #23, Sadly, I am inclined to agree with you here. In turn, your thoughts illustrate very clearly why the actual quote, not the altered one, from Sir John Houghton, was made in wisdom. tmac57, #24, All of this is quite plausible, noting as we have done in this piece and others how the polarity of the argument is drifting about, and yes witness the comments on the original American Thinker post that kicked this and some other SkS posts in the pipeline off. Compared to any discussion on controversial topics here, there's some well crazy stuff that's been posted. The trouble is that guys like Monckton, Inhofe, Morano, Lindzen, Singer and others have positively encouraged such non-critical thinking for as long as I've been in this debate. It's a bit rich for them (or some of them to be more accurate) to turn on their own now, having advocated almost exactly the same over many years. And at the same time they continue uncritically to repeat stuff that is just plain wrong. That ain't skepticism! -
Bob Lacatena at 03:47 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
tmac57, True. A lot of deniers are instead now focusing on climate sensitivity being low (al la Lindzen and Spencer). And when they finally accept that it is more than high enough to be a problem, they'll question the timing of any equilibrium sensitivity (figuring we have 200 years to figure out how to get things under control). And when they accept evidence of the pace of climate temperature change, they will then point out that maybe the effects of climate change won't be immediate, that the wholesale transition of ecosystems and ice melt will still take hundreds of years. They'll also question whether any immediate effects being seen are really a result of climate change, or just plain local weather phenomena. There will always be another denial "but," like one of those Russian nesting dolls.
In the words of Peewee Herman, "Everyone I know has a big but."
-
Alexandre at 03:22 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Captain Pithart at 01:44 AM on 17 March, 2012 Well spotted. It certainly deserves a rebuttal. -
tmac57 at 03:22 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Headline: 'Singer Out Of Tune With Climate Skeptics' Let me fix Singer's argument: "Climate 'Skeptics' are giving Skeptics a bad name".There,that's better! I predict that the deniers will keep 'refining' their position to the point that one day they will be claiming "We never,ever said that AGW isn't true,or that it wouldn't be a massive problem.We just said we don't know how much or when...now we know...it's quite massive,and now" Oh,and to that point,I am now regularly seeing deniers claiming that nobody is saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't happen,or that humans are not causing warming with Co2,it's just a matter of how much",(and of course they think it's small to negligible). Nobody?...Really!!!...Nobody? -
YubeDude at 03:21 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
DSL: "Singer et al. are only interested in shaping the opinions of those unable to access and process the evidence..." I completely agree, but this can be a winning strategy for Singer and Company. The fact is that a significant majority of the public have neither the ability nor desire to tackle the scientific nature of this issue and Singer knows that without the support of the majority of the public there will be no political will or public acceptance for change. All the science in the world will mean nothing without the general public buying into the reality. Singer isn't fighting the facts, he is fighting for the public's perception. Magic is about being entertained. True, most educated adults know that it is all done with smoke and mirrors but I would disagree that magics appeal is only in the desire to find the hidden tricks. More than a few just want to be entertained; those that choose to suspend adult reality and buy into the magic do so because it feels good. Climate issues, for the vast majority are too heavy and frightening; many just want to hear nice words and be entertained. Any dialog that is easy to swallow and avoids statements that mention change or suggest looming crises. are what people want to hear. The masses want happy magic not frightening facts. What percentage of the population do you think has the capability to comprehend the science involved? What percentage of the population do you think wants everything to stay just the way things are? Do you think the public wants to hear forecast of rising seas, heat waves and environmental destruction, or do they want to hear "don't worry, it won't be all that bad", which do you think the average man on the street wants to hear? This is not a question of what they need to hear but want they want to hear. I want to hear my wife is faithful and I ignore the parade of men leaving my bedroom when I come home. Singer is selling "science populism" to keep the crowds happy. He has the easy sell, it's what people want to hear and he is rebranding his argument to make it appear to have more scientific weight. Now the public gets a feel good analysis and it sounds like science; how can he go wrong? He isn't talking to you or me, he's talking to the 99.5%.
Prev 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 Next
