Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 Next
Comments 69051 to 69100:
-
bowdawg at 21:18 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
I tend to agree with what Tamino wrote about skeptics recently on a post at Real Climate, as follows: Fake skeptics like Anthony Watts try to blame global warming on bad station siting. Turns out he was wrong. Then they try to blame it on dropout of reporting stations. Turns out that was wrong. The fake skeptics can hardly contain their worship for a new team to estimate temperature (the Berkeley team) which is started by a skeptic. They’re sure the new estimate will prove that the other estimates are fraudulent. Anthony Watts proclaims that he’ll accept whatever their results are, even if it contradicts him. It contradicts him. He refuses to accept their results. He launches into multiple tirades to discredit the new effort. Fake skeptics try to blame global warming on UHI. Turns out they were wrong. Fake skeptics try to claim global warming has “paused” or “slowed down” or isn’t even happening. Turns out they were wrong. Scoundrels resort to stealing a bunch of private emails and take them out of context so they can launch a campaign of character assassination. Multiple investigations follow, the science of global warming is vindicated. Again. The fake skeptics have got nothing. Zero. Zip. Squat. With all the real science against them, apparently their only recourse is to look for “sloppy seconds” in the stolen emails in a lame attempt to revive their smear campaign. It tells us all we need to know about the so-called “skeptics.” They are pathetic. I’m tempted to laugh — but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate. Comment by tamino — 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:03 PM It is these "Fake Skeptics" I would refer to as deniers. -
adelady at 20:20 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
The funny thing about using the term "skeptic" is that I find I have to shift mental gears when moving from climate discussions to medical topics. When it comes to medicine, the "skeptics" and skepticism are about SBM, science based medicine - as against those advocating non/anti-scientific ideas about cancer therapies, anti-vaccination and the like. Me? I'd rather refer to climate deniers as self-styled skeptics to indicate a judgment that I/we don't accept the skeptic characterisation, but we politely refrain from clearly pejorative qualifiers such as pseudo or fake to express our non-acceptance. -
oneiota at 20:18 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
I'm glad you liked it! I know he's just talking about the weather but you need to start somewhere....understanding what drives the weather leads to understanding what drives the climate. Everyone (including the layman) is interested in the weather because the forecast informs our decisions about what to wear. As the weather changes so does our response...so should our informed response be to climate change. -
adelady at 19:57 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
oneiota. Thanks for that. It doesn't really belong on the debunking threads, but this is an outstanding example of science communication. Everyone who hasn't already read it - go for it. -
cynicus at 19:57 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
oneiota, that you for that link to the Australian rain assessment. It was both entertaining and instructive, a rare combination. Well worth the read. -
chriskoz at 19:38 PM on 1 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
tmac57 @17, Wouldn't it be ironic if we had to end up using as much energy to 'scrub' out the Co2 from our atmosphere,as it took burning fossil fuels,to put it there? I agree, reasonable balance of things means that the reversing of the reaction of burning C requires as much energy as was released multiplied by the efficiency of the reversal process. Natural processes are inefficient by far (i.e. photosynthesis is only at some 10% max, maybe even less I don't know) so forget about any help from nature to do that. That is confirmed by the studies above. So it's not just ironic but simply obvious that to "fix" that imbalance we need to reverse the energy flow. But there is some good news: human ingenuity cannot be included in those models. Who knows, in some 100y someone (a modern-day "divine savior") may invent an "artificial photosynthesis" working at close to 100% efficiency with which our descendents will start pumping extracted C directly into the empty holes (mines) we left to them as our heritage. And there is plenty of sun energy to do that. Of course it's SF but at least some hope that AGW is reversible in theory and humanity does not need to be cursed for 10-100ky. -
AndreasSchmittner at 19:04 PM on 1 December 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
dana: yes, I overlooked that, and I apologize. I guess for a blog you don't have to justify the choice of your number (67%). I'd still be curious. Will it be constant with time? -
Don Gaddes at 18:32 PM on 1 December 2011It's the sun
I'm saying there were no 'peers' working in the field of 'Dry Cycle' prediction. A S Gaddes sought and followed the advice of many scientific 'peers' at the time and many of them provided him with important papers and discussion pertaining to his work.(See his References) The data was able to be extrapolated after his death, because of the 'Ratios Principle.' It involves basic maths and is a perpetual equation. And yes, the Rotation and Gravitation of the Sun/Moon/Earth do include 'Physical Mechanisms.' The 'extraordinary burden of proof' you seek will be provided in the onset of future 'Dry Cycles' (if you do not wish to bother with the historical record.)How will the GBR react with an extended period of 'run-off' in 2013-14? Or how will Australian agriculture fare with a Five Year Drought From 2015-19? South-East Queensland will be in a severe state of water deprivation. pbjamm (917) mentioned the absence of Global Average Temperature prediction. This is relevant with the AGW hype surrounding the recent BEST Report. If the 'Dry Cycles,' are migrating longitudinally around the planet,(30 degrees/month with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic Field,) then the surface temperature will fluctuate as the cycles pass over the various measuring stations, (increasing while under the influence of the 'Dry Cycle' and decreasing in the subsequent 'Wet'/ Normal period. These fluctuations would be also subject to any volcanic (or other) 'albedo' effect. As these 'Cycles' last from one to five years, it does not seem relevant or possible to make generalisations about surface temperature.(see also Convection Still.)Response:[DB] "I'm saying there were no 'peers' working in the field of 'Dry Cycle' prediction. A S Gaddes sought and followed the advice of many scientific 'peers' at the time and many of them provided him with important papers and discussion pertaining to his work."
Now you resort to "termastrology". Uncontent with the standard definition of peer review, you redefine it to make the term more convenient to your position. By not publishing the work in a peer-reviewed, scientifically relevant journal the work by definition is not peer-reviewed.
This is a forum in which the science of climate change is discussed and explored. By science meaning peer-reviewed articles published by working scientists in the field in scientifically relevant papers. Nothing you have presented thus far meets those standards.
Thus, the reader of this blog will be unable to differentiate between what you have presented thus far and the works of Hapgood, Velikovsky, Burroughs (my favorite is where the famed scientist Tar Zan exlores the inner world of Pellucidar) and Hubbard. But lacking the entertainment value.
If you wish to further explore your claims, pick the ONE mechanism you feel most strongly about (the one you wish to "hang your hat on"), use the Search function in the upper left corner to find the most relevant thread and initiate a dialogue on it there. You waste everyone's time here with this Gish Gallop approach.
-
oneiota at 18:03 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
And indeed this accessible assessment of what's coming in 2012 for those of us south of Asia comes from the BOM. http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2011/09/chalk-cheese-cats-and-dogs/ -
oneiota at 17:55 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Being skeptical is a discipline (not an ideology) practiced with both eyes open. When the "ism" is added to the word skeptic one should blink both eyes to make sure that one isn't looking at the world through a prism (or an ideology). -
Brian Purdue at 17:51 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Thanks Alex, yes the information I have is the La Nina started to emerge in autumn (southern hemisphere). The information also said because of the strong La Nina, the 2010 record was a surprise to some. The information came from the Australian BOM. -
yocta at 17:27 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Further to the comment at 10. I think the opening statement on SkS could be a bit confusiing. Instead of reading like this: Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming I would suggest it be changed so as to read something more like this: Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. These 'skeptics' vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming To me that sentence isn't clear that it is the "Climate Skeptics" (or whatever label to give them) that are being referred to here. -
Alex C at 17:22 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
Brian: I think though that temperature tends to lag ENSO by about half a year, so while La Nina started in 2010, it was really toward the end and beginning of 2011 that it started to take effect. The drop is visible in GISTEMP's December value for instance: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt -
Brian Purdue at 17:10 PM on 1 December 20112011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
The La Nina formed during 2010 but last year still tired with 2005 as the hottest year ever recorded globally. It was one of the strongest La Ninas observed since records started in the late 1800s. This strenght lasted into 2011, as witnessed by record high rainfall across much of northern and eastern Australia. This near record La Nina would have had a large natural cooling effect and even though it has weakened, 2011 is still up there with the hottest years. This should send a strong message to the Durban climate conference but are governments’ listening? -
pbjamm at 16:32 PM on 1 December 2011It's the sun
This is like using epicycles to explain the motion of the planets. It is an overly complicated explanation that is required a for dogmatic rather than scientific reason. A much simpler explanation that explains *more* is avaialble if you abandon the premise that it must be cycles within cycles within cycles. If you stick with the Epicycle Theory of Climate you still need to account for the radiative characteristics of CO2, Water Vapor, CH4, etc since those are real and measurable. -
oneiota at 16:27 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Further to Tom's 29, I am also aware of a UK based organisation called Sense About Science . Whilst not calling itself "skeptic" it never-the-less practices skepticism across many areas including Climate. Sense About Science works with scientists and members of the public to change public debates and to equip people to make sense of science and evidence. Sense About Science responds to hundreds of requests for independent advice and questions on scientific evidence each year. We chase down dodgy science and mobilise networks of scientists and community groups to counter it. We also invite scientists to publish corrections of misreported research in our 'For the record' section. The composition of its board is very interesting...the Chair is a real Lord. -
Tom Curtis at 15:34 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Sphaerica @26:"The term “Skeptics” or “Sceptics” has been in the news a lot more than usual in the past few years. Often, this has been linked to ‘climate change scepticism’ which is a position that claims that some or all details of the theory of human-induced climate change are false. ‘Scepticism’ has also been linked to political opposition to specific measures, regardless of the science. Australian Skeptics is an organisation dedicated to the promotion of science and reason. We are not associated with the climate change scepticism movement, and especially not with political groups that use that term to indicate their position. It has always been the Australian Skeptics’ position that people should make up their minds based on the evidence. This position becomes even more important when what should be a completely scientific issue is used by politically-motivated groups to further their causes, often in the face of contradictory evidence. People who are not experts in fields related to climate science should seek the best available evidence, as judged by those who are experts in relevant fields. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not everyone is entitled to be taken seriously. On the very important and very complex questions of climate change and its causes, only the carefully formed opinions of relevantly qualified experts should be taken seriously. As in all fields of science, expertise emerges out of experience and through the peer-review process, not through media appearances or political connections."
http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/australian-skeptics-position-on-climate-change-sceptics/ http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/blog/climate-debate-opinion-vs-evidence/ http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/ Oh, and those other skeptics: http://www.skeptic.com/ -
Bob Lacatena at 15:13 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
25, Lloyd, The person you describe is not excessively skeptical. She is instead excessively gullible and un-skeptical. She believes without question the denial tripe that she reads. A skeptic looks into anything, no matter what it is, because they believe nothing without proof. Believing uncritically in denial lies is not only as un-skeptical as believing in the science without questioning it. It's equivalent to putting your faith in the cancer-fairy instead of radiation treatments, because you don't trust those dang doctors with all of their fancy titles and letters after their names. Her excuses for not taking the time to look into things do not make her a lazy skeptic. They make her a lazy denier, which to me is even worse than the usual kind. At least rabid deniers put a lot of energy into reinforcing their chosen belief system. They also have at least some small chance of stumbling across and understanding something that opens their eyes. -
Bob Lacatena at 15:08 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
23, Marcus, Spot on. -
Bob Lacatena at 15:08 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
tmac, Tom, I honestly have never seen these Skeptical societies. Can you point me towards them? And can you explain why they are (at least to me) so difficult to find that I am completely unaware of them? -
Changing the Direction of the Climate
[DB] - Just saw your moderation input, I'll have to look at those... not happy data, I have to say.Response:[DB] Conclusions of Archer 2009 (linked earlier):
Nowhere in these model results or in the published literature is there any reason to conclude that the effects of CO2 release will be substantially confined to just a few centuries.
In contrast, generally accepted modern understanding of the global carbon cycle indicates that climate effects ofCO2 releases to the atmosphere will persist for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years into the future.
Relevant Graphics:
-
Changing the Direction of the Climate
tmac57 - "Just how much do we know about how long Co2 remains in the atmosphere? I have seen sources that say 100 years,and others that say 1000 years. Is there that much uncertainty?" Archer 2005 represents some fairly recent research on this topic. He models ocean sequestration, oceanic temperature feedback, rock weathering, etc. "...we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr" The numbers following include modeled ocean thermal feedback (+), CaCO3 weathering (-), and silicate weathering (-) influences: First case - a 300gT slug (instant release) of carbon (what we've released so far), peak is > 350ppm (we're well above that now...): 1kY: 16.8% (~315ppm) 10kY: 9.8% 100kY: 6.7% Mean lifetime kY: 34.7 Worst case - 5000gT of carbon, burning all buried fossil fuels including all coal, peak for that slug is ~1700ppm: 1kY: 32.9% (~525ppm) 10kY: 15.1% 100kY: 6.7% Mean lifetime kY: 36.1 There are some fast adjustments, mostly soil sequestration and oceanic acidification - those have a half-life of ~40 years. But once those reach equilibrium we're down to longer term geologic sequestration - and that's very slow. "Humankind has already released about 300 Gton C from fossil fuels and deforestation, and the IPCC business-as-usual scenario (IS92a) projects about 1600 Gton of carbon released from a combination of fossil fuels and terrestrial fluxes, with emissions beyond 2100 unspecified." We're going to have to deal with the effects of our actions for quite some time to come. -
Don Gaddes at 14:12 PM on 1 December 2011It's the sun
We believe in 'Gravity' though we don't know what it is. We know and can measure what it Does. A S Gaddes published the original Ratios Principle and 'Dry Cycle'forecasts numbers in 1990. There were no 'peers' to review such work at the time. The fantasy of El Nino ruled the waves. Alex Gaddes died in 1997, leaving his forecasts at 2001. Don Gaddes extrapolated the 'Dry Cycle' Forecasts from 2001 to 2055 and republished the original work including the added forecasts,in 2011. A.S. Gaddes never speculated what the 'catalyst' or 'Weather Factor'was, emanating from the Sunspot Latitude of the Sun and affecting the Earths climate as exactly predictable 'Dry Cycles'.(Recent work seems to indicate there is something to the production of ultra-violet and ozone affecting the Jet Stream.) The work does not predict Global Average Temperatures,(though A S Gaddes also worked on the concept of a 'Convection Still' in this regard.) It predicts 'Dry Cycle' onset and influence (moving around the planet longitudinally with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic field.)As an example, 2011 'Wet'/Normal, 2012 One Year 'Dry Cycle'(Reaching New Zealand mid-December 2011 and Australia, early January 2012) 2013-14 Two year 'Wet'/Normal period, 2015-19 a severe Five Year 'Dry Cycle'(Drought.) The previous Five year Drought was 1997-2001. These 'Dry Cycles' are immutable, and are only alleviated by explosive volcanic albedo, (in Australia's case,usually volcanic activity in the Indonesian Archipelago.) The 'Dry Cycle' forecasts are exact in their arrival and duration, and can be easily proven to be so via weather records dating back into Tree-ring and Deep Ice Core analysis. I do not indulge in 'Mathturbation' or 'Climastrology' and neither did A S Gaddes. ( -snip- )Response:[DB] "...in 1990. There were no 'peers' to review such work at the time."
So you maintain that peer-review did not exist prior to 1991? Or that Gaddes the Elder had no peer?
"The fantasy of El Nino ruled the waves."
If making a funny, using a smiley or Poe's Law kicks in.
"Alex Gaddes died in 1997, leaving his forecasts at 2001."
He published in 1990, yet his data you cite runs after his death...via Ouija board?
"I do not indulge in 'Mathturbation' or 'Climastrology'"
In all seriousness, extraordinary claims require an extraordinary burden of proof. If you maintain what you do in the absence of physical mechanisms in the face of centuries of published research (which you seek to overturn with a non-peer-reviewed source) which says otherwise, then you do.
QED.
Inflammatory snipped.
-
tmac57 at 14:01 PM on 1 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
Spaerica,oneiota,and Chemware-Thanks for the Information.The Nature article said more about this than anything else that I have read on the subject...pretty unnerving,I must say. I find it rather extraordinary that this one aspect hasn't gotten more attention in stories of AGW.If the general public is not aware of the very long timelines that we could be stuck with the excess Co2,and all the concomitant problems that it causes,they might be too sanguine about it,thinking that our technology can easily overcome it in short order. This line from the Nature article really struck me: "If civilization was able to develop ways of scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere," Tyrrell says, "it's possible you could reverse this CO2 hangover." Wouldn't it be ironic if we had to end up using as much energy to 'scrub' out the Co2 from our atmosphere,as it took burning fossil fuels,to put it there?Response:[DB] For more info:
- Next Ice Age Delayed By Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels (Tyrrell 2007)
- The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 (Archer 2008)
- Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide (Archer 2009)
-
Lloyd Flack at 13:26 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
There are people who are excessively skeptical rather than deniers. A close friend of mine is one. She would not let politics blind her to unpleasant facts but her intuitions have been formed in safety critical IT and she has some mistaken impressions about what has actually been done in climate science. She has not looked into it in detail nor looked at the breadth of the evidence. She has had a lot of other things on her plate. But she has ran into too much denialist misinformation and has not had the time to find out the actual facts. I think she is typical of a lot of technically literate people who get fooled by sciency sounding stuff that gives satisfactory answers if you look at it quickly but which you have to put a lot of effort into if you want to know why the plausible sounding answer is wrong. A lot of people with a scientific background are vulnerable to a Gish gallop in fields other than their own, especially if their intuitions and experience aggravate the problem. -
Chemware at 12:53 PM on 1 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
@12, tmac57: It's a distribution of times, rather than just a number: Carbon is forever, Nature, 2008 -
Marcus at 12:45 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
sorry Karl, not Kyle. -
Marcus at 12:45 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Hmmm, Kyle, I think it would be more appropriate to say that Deniers calling themselves Skeptics is damaging the image of skepticism in the same way that Terrorists calling themselves Muslims is damaging the image of Islam-the fault lies not with the broader group, but with the people who're using the label under false pretenses. -
Tom Curtis at 12:19 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Karl_from_Wylie @20, you miss the point. We did not start calling deniers "skeptics". They did. At first we did not have a problem with that and followed their chosen use until it became very obvious that they were in fact not true skeptics, but deniers. As to "radicalizing the moderate opposition", the deniers are certainly trying to leverage the term to do just that, just as they previously tried to leverage the term "skeptic" to suggest that their opponents where not skeptical, but rather dogmatic or gullible or both. I note, however, that it is they who are playing word games, while it is we who want to discuss the science. -
oneiota at 12:13 PM on 1 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
Sphaerica, I'm not sure that this is relevent however AFAIK(and that is not very much) the long term answer (weathering of silicate rocks) is geological in process and time scale and according to this paper the ocean sequestration of CO2 is less effective than weathering of terrestial silicate rocks. -
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Sphaerica @16, I was going to draw your attention to skeptical societies, but merely note that tmac57 @19 has beaten me to it. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 12:03 PM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Wouldn't you say that lumping skeptics in as deniers, is analogous to lumping Muslims in with terrorists? Doesn't it do your effort of persuasion a disservice? As it tends to radicalize some of the moderate opposition?Response:[DB] You were warned here to cease with the Concern Trolling. Every comment made since then has either been more of the same or a complaint about moderation. Future, similar, comments will simply be deleted and a rescinding of posting privileges will be considered.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and compliance in this matter.
-
Stephen Baines at 11:50 AM on 1 December 2011Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
gary I'm not sure you have read that Philapona paper with due diligence. Yes it states that changes in DW LW were three times larger than predicted by a GCM, but that paper also ends with the sentence "The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations." Rather than dismissing one statement out of hand, it would be better to understand how the two statements could coexist in the same paper. Turns out the difference you note was because the GCM predictions were average northern hemisphere values forced with a 10% change in CO2 when only a 3.3% change actually occurred. The humidity and cloud levels in central europe were higher than predicted based on a 3.3% increase although in line with a 10% increase) in CO2 because of changing regional atmospheric circulation (due to NAO) across central europe, along with their attendant effects on local cloud cover and humidity. The measured changes LW radiation were actually in line with measured changes in humidity, cloud cover and GH gasses. It's just the changes in the first two parameters were both a function of GH driven climate change and regional weather patterns. Look, I'm a biologist. I have no expertise in this field - like which GCMs are better etc. Still, I can understand a fair bit of the nuance behind what they are doing. Did you even ask Philapona if his paper entitled "Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect" discredits the greenhouse effect? DB is also right. Model verification in GCMs is not model fitting. They are very cognizant of that problem as you would realize if you ever read deeply in that literature. There is also nothing "magic" about models. -
tmac57 at 11:45 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Sphaerica- I have to take issue with your statement "True skeptics don't call themselves skeptics." There is a large and growing international Skeptic movement that embraces that name.The vast majority of them are fighting the denial movement with great vigor.We are on your side,and take great exception when deniers use the term 'skeptic' whether it is about doubting climate change,or conspiracy theories or any kind of trashing of mainstream science.There has been much debate in the real skeptical movement about whether or not the term carries too much baggage,but the history of the modern movement dates back to the early 1970's,long before the deniers,so we got there first,and we intend to stand our ground. -
Marcus at 11:41 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Sphaerica-its kind of like people who call themselves "intellectuals". I've always noted that true intellectuals never refer to themselves as such, whereas pseudo-intellectuals often call themselves intellectuals ;-). -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:38 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
I have to say, though. The people I admire the most are people like Barry Bickmore. People who are genuinely conservative and have had to come to the correct conclusions about climate science. I don't mind disagreeing about the solutions but let's get real about what the problem is so that we can get to the solutions. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:22 AM on 1 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
tmac57, I'm very curious about that topic (how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere) and need to do some research, because I'm not really sure where it is going to go, and how it is going to get there. Current atmospheric CO2 can't go into the ocean, because that is already becoming saturated, is already taking up as much of current and past emissions as it can, and will hold less and less CO2 as it warms. Eventually, the oceans may transition to a source rather than a sink for CO2. Current atmospheric CO2 can for a while go into plant matter but only for as long and as far as vegetation can grow and expand. If things get bad enough and deserts start to expand, droughts increase in frequency and strength, the Amazon transitions to savanna... that's another source of carbon rather than a sink. The only real way that I've seen to draw down current atmospheric CO2 from current levels comes from the biological pump and ocean circulation covered in this post on ocean acidifcation. But to do that, the ocean has to shed its CO2 in that fashion just to begin absorbing atmospheric CO2, to shed that to draw temperatures down to be able to hold more CO2 itself. It looks to me like 100 years is a very, very, very optimistic figure. It looks to me like a number on the order of thousands of years is far more likely. Does anyone have any references that point to a better answer? -
Bob Lacatena at 11:07 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
14, Karl, True skeptics don't call themselves skeptics. They don't label themselves at all. They just look at information, learn and make decisions. The only people I've ever met who call themselves skeptics are, in fact, deniers. I see no reason to make a distinction in the language, because the only people who will be offended by a lack of distinction are the deniers who get their undies all in a bunch at being called deniers. So now the problem is that we're calling them skeptics? Sheesh. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Karl... Read the full paragraph. John was making a clear distinction between genuine scientific skepticism and people who profess to be skeptics but are not. That is the whole premise of the website. "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism." To clarify, you could say, "Getting truly skeptical about global warming fake skepticism." -
Karl_from_Wylie at 11:02 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Rob Honeycut..... This website views Skeptics and Deniers as the same. Please re-read... "...Skeptics vigorously criticise ANY evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace ANY argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming." -
Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
If I can buy into the conversation between Karl and Rob, one of the thing that distinguishes a genuine skeptic from a denier is that a skeptic refuses to let political convenience substitute for skepticism. If you read the comments of any popular denier blog, or of Skeptical Science, you will see genuinely bizzare theories proposes by so-called "skeptics" from time to time. Like the suggestion that the Earth's volcanoes produce in a day as much CO2 as humans produce in a year (in fact the Earth's volcanoes, including those underwater produce only 1/100th of the CO2 that humans produce in a year, so the ratio is almost exactly the reverse of that claimed); or variations in the Earth's surface temperature are entirely the consequence of variations in geothermal heat flows (I kid you not). The response from "so-called" skeptics to these theories has been, almost universally, to say that the theories are interesting, or that they would like to see more work done on the theory. With very few exceptions it is not to criticize the obvious errors in the claims. IMO there are two reasons for this behaviour. The first is a matter of overall political strategy. If your purpose is to stop anti-AGW policies rather than scientific truth, than absurd theories can help that cause, so you don't knock them on the head. The second is glass house syndrome. The so-called skeptics know that their positions cannot withstand thorough going critiques. Therefore they do not critique absurd theories lest the favour be returned. In contrast, on SkS I have not hesitated to criticize my fellow defenders of climate science when I have believed them to be wrong, and they have not hesitated to return the favour (and it is a favour, for which I am grateful). The reason is that for us, truth is more important than political advantage. That is one mark of a true skeptic which is transparently lacking in popular denier sites. -
scaddenp at 10:51 AM on 1 December 2011Changing the Direction of the Climate
I dont think you can talk about an optimuum level of CO2. The trick is not to change it too fast. Repeating the mantra - its the rate of change that matters. -
Stephen Baines at 10:49 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
KfW The front page is pointing out that the term "skeptic" has been appropriated in the climate change debate by those who deny the evidence for climate change, yet claim to be skeptics simply because they disagree with the staus quo. It also references "true scientific skepticism" the the ideal appraoch to the problem. True skepticism evaluates alternative explanations by evaluating the evidence for and against so as to determine which explanation fits that evidence most closely. It dispenses with preconceived notions if the evidence does not support them. It also accepts the status quo when the evidence supports it. When you deny evidence in favor of a preconceived notion, you are engaging in what can fairly (if not very constructively) be called denial. That denial can in fact be rabid the preconceived beliefs are very dear indeed. You will find if you dig into the scientific literature that there are many issues of contention and uncertainty in climate change science, and levels of nuance in our understanding that is not present the debate in the lay public. But there are also many propositions that really are no longer open to debate because the evidence for them is so strong. These can be called established facts because the weight of evidence for them is so strong. A proper skeptic would not simply doubt these facts a priori. That is intellectually lazy. They would instead try to understand why the evidence has proven so convincing to so many. A denier presumes a priori that such consensus is by definition proof of a consipracy rather than skeptical inquiy. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:23 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Karl... I had to back and look at the full context of the sentence to get the gist of what was being said. The full statement is talking about climate denial. Deniers " vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming." Disagreeing with basic facts in not skepticism. Wanting to clearly understand the uncertainties is. -
Jsquared at 10:19 AM on 1 December 2011Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
Philippe @39: 'an epidemic of enormity' is a really nice turn of phrase, and dead accurate. Maybe one needs vehicles that size just to accomodate the drivers. I always thought the narrow streets you find in most European cities were designed on purpose to keep gross vehicles out. Imagine trying to drive something like a typical American SUV in a (French, Italian, Spanish, English) village - or trying to park it. A little less tongue in cheek - a lot of US drivers buy what amount to tanks for simple self-protection. There are an awful lot of idiots here who run a stop sign or a red light because of chatting it up on a cellphone, or whatever. Small cars lose in confrontation with one of those. Adelady #40: The mini is still a nice car - and I bet you could get a sheet of plywood on the roof if you wanted to move it. Why can't they make these small cars (I have a Fit) so you can get an 8 ft long piece of lumber inside? -
Tom Smerling at 10:11 AM on 1 December 2011The Debunking Handbook: now freely available for download
We plugged the book today on ClimateBites, and took a shot at extracting the "Top 10 Take Away Points" from the handbook, and adding our own bit of spin, for people who'd like a sample before downloading. I'll be curious to hear others' opinions on whether we nailed the key points. The post at http://www.climatebites.org/2011/11/30/climate-change-rebuttalmust-read-the-debunking-handbook-from-skeptical-science/ -
SteveFunk at 10:08 AM on 1 December 2011Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
re: DB in #7. I see that Michigan also has rules which effectively prohibit studded tires. http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1586_27094-73839--,00.html California at least is a lot more liberal on that. For those afflulent enough to afford 4 wheel drive who live in snow country, it is hard to resist the feeling that you have to have it. For those who can't afford it, take comfort that you are helping your own bottom line as well as the planet every time you get your fingers icy cold and your clothes wet by putting on the chains or taking them off. -
Tom Curtis at 09:54 AM on 1 December 2011Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Jfyre11 @58, thankyou. For my part is certainly is helpful. I know the authors here at SkS always try to get the facts straight, and appreciate any correction when we fail. -
Karl_from_Wylie at 09:53 AM on 1 December 2011Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
Rob Honeycutt @8 According to www.skepticalscience.com, a skeptic is someone who.. "vigorously criticise ANY evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace ANY argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming." Can someone merely disagree or not yet convinced, without being painted as a wingnut? ?? -
garythompson at 09:47 AM on 1 December 2011Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
I have the utmost respect for The Science of Doom website and posted comments on his first rebuttal of my AT article which prompted his 2nd post which, while I read it, didn't feel the need to post any further comments. In that 2nd Science of Doom post (which is referenced in comment #98 above) he basically made the statement that models are the foundation of the theory. It doesn't matter that actual measurements don't validate that theory and it's only when we plug those measurements into models that we reach the conclusions that models predict. Surprise! I don't agree with that circular logic and stated that in my comments to his first post and felt no compulsion to replicate those same arguments. And I have yet to hear an answer to the question why climate models predict temperture increases three times what is observed from CO2 increases. This was stated in the Philopona 2004 paper entitled "Radiative forcing - measure at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect." If a model is off by a factor of 3, then it can't be used to validate theory. Are there other errors in the climate Models? In the papers that were referenced in the AT article the actual OLR measurements didn't decrease in the range that CO2 absorbs but only after compensating for humidity and temperatures and plugging them into models did the OLR magically decrease. CO2 continues to increase at a rate faster than temperatures are increasing so I agree with Ramanathan that if the theory is true, it won't matter what the surface temps are, OLR should decrease if CO2 is trapping the OLR. I don't see how you can have faith in models that are off by a factor of 3.Moderator Response: You are incorrect. The measurements are not plugged into the models. The models are not wrong by three times. In the Search field type "models are unreliable" (without the quote marks).
Prev 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 Next
