Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 Next
Comments 61801 to 61850:
-
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%. -
Composer99 at 02:24 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
One gets the feeling Singer is putting lipstick on a pig here (or, borrowing a line from Two and a Half Men, putting a goat in a tuxedo). -
shoyemore at 02:15 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Mostly, these guys are attuned to their audience and shape their message accordingly. Hence, Lindzen's "reasonable" message in London. I am sure if faced with a group of Tea Party Republicans, he would let rip with the usual "Fascist Plot!". You will find Christopher Monckron makes the same assessment of his audience. I saw him once on TV presenting the climate war as a gentlemanly dispute over the value of clmate sensitivity. Within months he was in Australia cutting loose with his usual "Big Government Nazis!" line. Singer is surprising because he chose to make his play to the most inimical of audiences. 99% of the comments on American Thinker attack him, and treat him with even more contempt than climate scientists do. In the 1960s, the Republican Party cut itself loose from right wing crazies like the John Birch Society for the good of the party. They have since been let re-join, but maybe Singer realises that his brand of denialism needs to do the same or they will all sink together. -
dana1981 at 02:02 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Note we also have a post in the works examining Singer's scientific comments in this article. -
Mark Harrigan at 01:48 AM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Brilliant. Glenn I don't know what your background is but you obviously have a very clear grasp of the physics here because this is the best explanation of how the increase in thermal energy being retained by the planet due to additional green house gases being added by humans that I can recall reading. It is simultabeously simple, concise, comprehensive and accurate. Thanks - I'm keeping a copy on my system as reference to share and use (attributed of course) -
Captain Pithart at 01:44 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
The "CO2 was higher in the 19th century" is not new, it comes from a E&E study of the late biology teacher Ernst-Georg Beck. Here is the central diagram, which I get a laugh from every time I look at it, and here's the E&E article. Rebuttals are here, here, here, here, and here (among others). David Wojick (the guy that does the K-12 curriculum for Heartland Institute) likes the Beck data too (to be fair, he's smarter than that, pounding the uncertainty; this just to show that the Beck data is still thriving). I was wondering for a while why there was no rebuttal to this crock :) p. -
DSL at 01:10 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Third section should be "Argument is not . . ." -
DSL at 01:08 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
YubeDude@9: "the public will be dazzled by Singers spectacular fashion sense and controlled modulation. Magic is all about deception and debating the bottom side of an argument requires skills of a David Copperfield." Undoubtedly, but it's easier when the audience doesn't want to see the wires, mirrors, and machinery that allows the magic to work. Copperfield's audience doesn't at all believe in the magic; they know it's wires, mirrors, and machinery. They want to see how well Copperfield can hide the wires, mirrors, and machinery. Singer's target audience desperately needs actual magic--something to counter the inevitable transformative march of science across the competing authorities of religion (the future is already written) and the blind, mad dash of unfettered capitalism (the future is the untold story of the production of exchange value by the individual; all other histories/metanarratives--environmental, social, etc.--are illusions and (pardon me) the lies of "academic liberals"). One audience looks for the wires, mirrors, and machinery; the other desperately tries to avoid seeing the wires, mirrors, and machinery. is not the primary activity of the Singers of the world, whatever side. Singer, Monckton, Watts, et al. do not engage in direct dialogue concerning the science (many applauded Pielke Sr. for trying to do so, and rightly so, even if it ended a little muddled). They studiously avoid such direct dialogue. Argument is for people who want to resolve a situation. Singer et al. are only interested in shaping the opinions of those unable to access and process (for whatever reason) the evidence; they are not interested in engaging in scientific discussion with working scientists (unless the event is carefully controlled to produce the desired outcome -- see Monckton). -
Martin Lack at 00:33 AM on 17 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Further to my #71. Another one of my posts that highlights the fact that the last bastion of denial will always be one of economic rationalism was Being economical with your scepticism (3 October 2011), in which I concluded: "...This would appear to lend weight to the argument of those that have suggested that it is Capitalist economics and/or consumerism that is/are the problem; what [Herman E.] Daly calls 'growthmania' and Hamilton 'growth fetishism'. Whatever you want to call it, some economists... appear to have decided that they cannot afford the IPCC to be right; and are therefore willing to grasp hold of any evidence they can find (or that other conservative think tanks feed to them) that may confirm this view. In other words, this is cognitive dissonance leading to confirmation bias; being dressed-up as economic rationalism." -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:08 AM on 17 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Alexandre, I gave some ideas about the uneven distribution of water vapor here: /detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html, and modeling of ENSO in post 30 here: /Dessler-2011-Debunks-Roy-Spencer-And-Richard-Lindzen.html. Neither thread is very satisfying to me, I still owe scaddenp a more detailed answer, but I certainly do not have the time to build my own climate model. -
zinfan94 at 00:02 AM on 17 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Some of the confusion on the thread with power (or energy flows, or even energy flow density) versus total energy (heat) could be avoided if we kept to using heat units. I really dislike the focus of talking about energy balances in terms of Watts per square meter, for example. This is misleading because of significant variations in energy flows around the planet and from year to year. I am a chemical (process) engineer, and we do energy balances all the time, so the focus on heat transfer and heat units comes naturally to my thought process. Thats why I prefer to think of global heating. I like to compare to the total energy released by burning fossil fuels, because I can relate to this. I think of all the power plants, with their massive heat sinks; all the refineries that consume about 10% of energy moved through the refinery, and all the engines on all the cars, all the jet engines on all the planes, all the heaters and furnaces on all the houses and buildings, with all the hot exhaust heat, and so forth... And if I add all that up, its still only a few percent of the heat being absorbed by the planet due to the imbalance in the planetary energy budget caused by greenhouse gases. Then when I think of this massive energy imbalance, and realizing only a small portion (about 1%) of this massive imbalance currently heats the atmosphere and raises surface temperatures; then I can start to recognize what a dangerous and risky position mankind has created by ignoring greenhouse gas emissions. The heat sinks (ocean, ice packs, land ice, and continental land/waters) are keeping the planet from seeing much faster atmospheric temperature rises. Only a small reduction in the ability of the heat sinks to store heat, would drive atmospheric temperatures much higher. We are betting our lives on the untested assumption that the heat sinks will continue to absorb 99% of the energy imbalance. Then I can realize that something similar is happening with the CO2 sinks. Carbon dioxide levels could start rising much faster if the uptake in CO2 by the oceans and the continental soils slows... Again we are betting our lives on the untested assumption that these sinks will continue to absorb about half of our fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Humans are taking a risky bet that the planetary processes for sequestering heat and carbon dioxide will not change, even as the planet heats and carbon dioxide concentrations rise. If the sinks do begin saturating, and either CO2 levels climb faster, or the heat ending up in the atmosphere increases, the forecasts by climate scientists of future global warming, will be too low. In my opinion, the issues regarding heat and CO2 sink saturations, along with other possible tipping points, are the "elephant in the room"; difficult to talk about or quantify, but potentially what could kill us in the end. -
Dave123 at 23:55 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Reading the comments at Amerian Thinker (and seeing some of the usual idiots over there...ie -Snip-) makes me think this is just part of Singer's shtick. He can whip out those comments to show "See, I'm in the reasonable middle!"Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
Seeking answers at 23:49 PM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
The post says: "So what we are left with are just 2 possibilities. High level clouds are increasing - relative to low level clouds, because it is the difference between their 2 effects that counts, or the GH gases are causing more of the GH effect." It seems to me that there are two supposed effects of clouds: 1) Neutralizing the warming effect of GH gases 2) Causing the observed warming It also seems to me that clouds would have to have both these effects simultaneously, to explain GW. Am I right in suggesting that? And, is this actually possible? -
Alexandre at 23:28 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Eric (skeptic) at 23:23 PM on 16 March, 2012 I'm sure you have already explained this before here, but I'm not that regular here. What has convinced you that the sensitivity should be in the lower end of the uncertainty ranges? -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:23 PM on 16 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
I can't speak for Singer, but many skeptics accept greenhouse gas theory because it is well established and coherent with all the evidence, not just as a "tactic". Similarly, most skeptics do not promote or endorse deniers, but to the contrary spend numerous but mostly wasted hours explaining basic physics to them. I agree with the substance of Singer's argument, but his writing is bad, using terms like warmista is ridiculous. I agree with Dikran above, since I am skeptical of high sensitivity I cannot claim to be a moderate in that debate, I am clearly on the left end of the estimate curve. As for being associated with the cranks, it happens 100% of the time in any thread with people who don't know me. I find it's pretty much useless to explain that I am not anti-science. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:59 PM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
73, jzk, So you really think that the best way to get China, a potentially emerging superpower, to cut back is to just do nothing ourselves, because they're not cutting back, and even if they are, no one else is, and even if we do, they're going to emit more than us eventually anyway? WTF?Response:[DB] Note that a response to you was moderated out due to ideology and inflammatory tone.
-
Alexandre at 22:59 PM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
And Martin Lack is right. Enough hijacking. -
Alexandre at 22:58 PM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk at 04:32 AM on 16 March, 2012 I understand. The US cannot afford to let China take the lead as the largest per capita emitter, because it would mean lowering their life standards to, say, swedish ones. Or in more direct terms: The raise of Chinese emissions is a lame excuse to do nothing. The US could emit as little as many European countries which have pretty much the same life standards for their citizens. The phasing out of fossil fuels is a sensible path EVEN if we do not take AGW into account. A leader that sets the example could even have the moral and political power to demand that others do likewise, be it in commercial or political negotiations. Apparently, you prefer the look-I-said-he-is-bad-so-there's-room-for-my-worsening attitude.
Prev 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 Next
